A new breed of creative software is challenging Adobe's dominance. And it's only just getting started. ArtCraft has just thrown a massive spanner into Adobe’s ultra-profitable corporate machinery. A new collection of free, open-source creative applications is taking aim at Adobe’s Creative Cloud empire. Photoshop, Illustrator, InDesign, Lightroom and much more are following. No subscriptions. No signups. No disguised "I'm-robbing-you" corporate babble. ArtCraft application suite installation launcher. These applications are still in their infancy, but the implications for Adobe’s long-standing market dominance could be enormous. I spent the whole afternoon putting ArtCraft’s main applications through their paces. They’re still early builds, yet nowhere near as buggy as I’d expected. Quite the opposite. Delightfully fast, stable and smooth. First surprise: the size. Fully installed, each ArtCraft application I tested is roughly a tenth the size of its Adobe equivalent. Installation? Under a minute. And hardly any of those pesky service files Adobe likes to scatter all over your hard drive. The interface is a bit different, but definitely familiar. Adobe purists might moan. I actually like Craft’s little interface quirks and touches. Tools, menus, floating panels, functions - all exactly where they should be, doing exactly what they’re meant to do. Support for .psd and .ai files is there. It’s not quite as seamless as Adobe’s native handling, but it’s perfectly workable. You soon get used to it. However, DesignCraft won’t open .indd files directly. But it will read and save in .idml format. So, pro InDesign users, you know the drill. Of course, these are early days. There will be bugs, missing features and compatibility headaches. Nobody seriously expects a young, open-source project to match decades of Adobe development overnight. But that’s hardly the point. The real question is how quickly that gap might close. AI-assisted software development is changing the economics of building complex applications. What once required enormous teams, vast budgets, and years of development can increasingly be accomplished with a fraction of those resources. And that should make Adobe rather nervous. Verdict? I’m impressed. Very impressed. And this is just the beginning. I can imagine future versions being absolutely mind-blowing. If I were Adobe, I’d be crapping myself. Adobe killers: ArtCraft suite of applications As for Adobe, their cold, corporate, money-grabbing practices over the past two decades may finally be coming home to roost. Years of treating their customers like dogshit, squeezing us for every last penny they could scrape out of us. And all along, they relied on the comfortable assumption that they'd got us trapped forever and we’d have nowhere else to go. Well, perhaps we have now. You can’t help but think of QuarkXPress. Once the undisputed king of desktop publishing. Still around, but barely a shadow of its former self. A cautionary tale Adobe never bothered to look into: how quickly market dominance can evaporate when a better alternative comes along. Corporate arrogance and shareholder insatiable greed have a price, it would seem. And for good measure, there are more gems from ArtCraft. - - - Image editing, vector illustration, video, photography, PDFs, motion graphics, page layout, interface design, word processing, audio, presentations, CAD and spreadsheets. Native, open-source apps from the ArtCraft team, built in Rust and free to use. To install apps: https://getartcraft.com/apps DOWNLOAD LAUNCHER > open artcraft-launcher.dmg > drag Launcher into your Applications folder > open Launcher > choose the applications you want to install > that’s it.

A CASE STUDY IN REPUTATION MANAGEMENT GONE WRONG. “Any damn fool can put on a deal, but it takes genius, faith and perseverance to create a brand.” — David Ogilvy Few beers illustrate his point better than Stella Artois. Stella's genius was never simply the beer. It was the construction of meaning around the beer: price, provenance, European sophistication, heritage, ritual and, above all, the kind of person you imagined drank it. That is branding at its most powerful. And Stella is also a fascinating example of what happens when the meaning created by consumers eventually overwhelms the meaning created by advertising. TURN THE PROBLEM INTO THE PROPOSITION When Stella was being positioned as a premium lager in Britain, it had an obvious disadvantage. It was expensive. The conventional response would have been to justify the price, discount it, or quietly avoid mentioning it. Lowe did something much cleverer. REASSURINGLY EXPENSIVE. Instead of resisting the objection, they turned it into an asset. The price itself became evidence of quality. Jack Trout described the principle neatly: when people see a high price, they often infer the product must offer corresponding value. In that sense, the price ceases to be merely a cost and becomes part of the product's perceived benefit. It was textbook premium positioning. The campaign then wrapped that proposition in extraordinarily coherent brand codes: beautifully shot European cinema, elegant typography, continental manners, ritualised pouring, and carefully cultivated heritage. The famous television work borrowed heavily from French cinematic culture, particularly Jean de Florette. Intriguingly, Stella actually comes from Leuven, in Dutch-speaking Flanders. Academic analysis of the campaign has noted exactly this contradiction: Stella was Belgian, but British advertising frequently used French language and cultural codes because “French” communicated sophistication more efficiently to British consumers. Geographical accuracy mattered far less than semiotics. That is worth lingering on, because it goes to the heart of branding. Appearance is not decoration added to reality. In the consumer's mind, appearance becomes part of reality. The chalice, the European cinematography, the French language and the high price were not incidental packaging around Stella Artois. Together they were Stella Artois. YOU DON'T SELL THE BEER. YOU SELL WHO DRINKS IT. This is where premium branding becomes psychologically interesting. People do not merely consume products. They use them to construct and communicate identity. A Rolex tells time, a Porsche transports its owner, and a Stella quenches thirst, but their commercial value extends far beyond those functions. IN PREMIUM BRANDING, YOU DON'T SELL THE BEER. YOU SELL THE STORY OF WHO DRINKS IT. Two mechanisms are doing much of the work: placebo and social signalling. If I believe I am drinking a superior Belgian lager, served in an elegant branded chalice, carrying centuries of brewing expertise and costing more than its competitors, my experience of the beer is altered before it reaches my mouth. “WE DRINK THE CAN, NOT THE BEVERAGE.” — Seth Godin Stella understood this extraordinarily well. And, occasionally, pushed the mythology a little too far. In 2007, the Advertising Standards Authority banned an advertisement carrying the claim "A family dedicated to brewing for six centuries”, ruling that consumers were likely to understand it as meaning that one family had been brewing Artois beers for six centuries. InBev argued that “family” referred to its family of beers. The regulator was unconvinced. That episode holds a lovely branding lesson. Heritage is enormously valuable because consumers cannot easily manufacture it themselves. But once heritage moves from evocative storytelling into verifiable factual claims, the romance becomes accountable to history. THEN DISTRIBUTION STARTED EATING THE BRAND Premium positioning depends upon controlled contradiction. You need enough availability to sell volume, but enough scarcity, price discipline, and context to maintain desirability. Distribution therefore isn't merely logistics. Distribution is a brand decision. And this is where Stella began running into trouble. By the 1990s it had become spectacularly successful in Britain. Stella became the bestselling take-home beer in 1995. But supermarkets and off-licences increasingly used powerful beer brands to drive footfall, pushing multipacks and promotions. The elegant world portrayed in Stella advertising was beginning to collide with the rather different reality of mass-market consumption. Marketing Week noted the contradiction at the time: “Reassuringly Expensive” was being undermined by discount promotions in supermarkets and off-licences. This is the part many organisations still fail to understand. You cannot endlessly tell consumers that something is exclusive while simultaneously making it cheap, ubiquitous and available in enormous quantities. Eventually the distribution strategy becomes louder than the advertising. And consumers began writing their own version of the Stella brand. ENTER THE “WIFE BEATER” FIASCO It's difficult to pinpoint exactly where the nickname originated. By the late 1990s and early 2000s, however, “wife beater” had become common British slang for Stella Artois. The association appears to have grown from Stella's reputation as a relatively strong lager and its connection in popular culture with binge drinking, drunken aggression and the British “lager lout”. Contemporary reporting described exactly that perception. A wonderfully neat alternative theory also involves A Streetcar Named Desire. Marlon Brando's drunken and violent Stanley Kowalski famously bellows "Stella!" for his wife after she leaves him. It is almost too perfect. Unfortunately, little evidence suggests this was the origin of the beer's nickname. Even InBev's UK president Stuart MacFarlane said in 2008 that he did not know how the term had arisen. The Streetcar explanation is best treated as an appealing theory rather than established fact. From a branding perspective, what matters is not who first said it. What matters is why it stuck. The nickname attached itself to an existing cultural perception of the product. Stella had gone from being the expensive continental lager of beautifully art-directed advertisements to something increasingly associated with cheap supermarket multipacks, heavy drinking and Friday-night disorder. That distinction matters enormously. There is no basis for saying Stella Artois caused domestic violence. Even InBev correctly objected that reducing domestic abuse to a particular beer was offensive and irresponsible. But brands live in culture, not in corporate strategy documents. And culturally, the damage was devastating. The advertising said European refinement. Popular culture said wife beater. Guess which one won. This is perhaps the most important lesson in the entire Stella story: companies own trademarks; consumers own meanings. Once a colloquial identity becomes stronger than the official one, another £20 million advertising campaign cannot simply order people to forget it. YOU CAN'T DELETE A BRAND PROBLEM The scale of that reputational problem became almost comically clear in 2012. Portland Communications, a public affairs and PR consultancy representing Stella's owner AB InBev, was discovered to have edited Wikipedia. A user associated with Portland removed Stella Artois from Wikipedia's “wife beater” page, replacing the reference with the more generic “lager or beer”. Attempts were also made to remove the nickname from Stella's own Wikipedia entry. Other Wikipedia editors noticed and restored it. Portland did not deny making the changes, arguing that the edits had been made openly and within Wikipedia's rules. The episode is almost a miniature case study in reputation management gone wrong. The Chartered Institute of Public Relations' Jane Wilson identified the fundamental problem perfectly: changing Wikipedia would not remove an association that already existed in common usage. You cannot edit your way out of a positioning problem. If the public has given your brand an unwanted meaning, removing the words describing that meaning does nothing to change the underlying mental association. You have to change the conditions that created it. TRYING TO PUT STELLA BACK IN THE CHALICE And, to its credit, Stella tried. By 2007, “Reassuringly Expensive” had been retired, and InBev began placing much greater emphasis on the broader Artois name, heritage, and craftsmanship. Later came lower-strength variants and a determined move back towards more controlled premium cues. Even its sponsorship strategy became part of the repositioning. Football was largely left to competitors, while Stella attached itself to Wimbledon, Ascot and golf's Open Championship: environments with very different class and behavioural associations. The product itself changed too. Stella's UK ABV was progressively reduced. When AB InBev cut the strength to 4.8% in 2012, it described the move as reflecting “evolving UK category trends”. Industry reporting also calculated that the reduction could save approximately £8.6 million annually in duty on Stella's off-trade sales alone. Both things can, of course, be true. There may genuinely have been changing consumer preferences around alcohol strength. There was also a very substantial financial benefit. Again, the lesson is less about beer than about perception. Consumers are perfectly capable of recognising when corporate virtue and commercial advantage happen to walk into the pub together. THE REAL PRODUCT WAS ALWAYS THE STORY None of this makes Stella's marketing a failure. Quite the opposite. “Reassuringly Expensive” remains one of the great pieces of British advertising and brand positioning. It took a genuine purchasing objection and converted it into desirability. It built an unmistakable visual and verbal world. It understood price signalling, cultural codes and aspiration decades before marketers began endlessly talking about “brand storytelling”. But Stella also demonstrates the limits of advertising. A brand cannot sustain a premium story when price, distribution, consumption culture, and public experience tell another. That is why the Stella story is much more interesting than a simple tale of deceptive advertising. It is a battle between two versions of reality. The reality a company carefully manufactures. And the reality consumers manufacture for themselves. In premium branding, you do not simply sell the beer. You sell the story of who drinks it. But eventually, the folk drinking it get to write the story too. Stella shows the machinery of branding in a very concrete way: Price signalling Manufactured origin Status cues Repetition Identity Selective truth In the end, the public pushes back with a completely different meaning of its own. It isn't about beer. It's about perception engineering: how skilful advertising can make a product's symbolic reality more important than the physical thing being sold. And there's a lovely irony in Stella's story. They spent decades constructing the brand's meaning, only to discover that consumers could construct an alternative meaning far more powerful than the one intended.

AI has become the new electricity — invisible, everywhere, and increasingly essential. But as it seeps into every corner of our daily lives, it’s revealing a quiet divide between two emerging tribes. The Harnessers A small, curious minority treat AI as an extension of their intellect, not a replacement for it. They question its outputs, test its limits, and refine its mistakes into insight. They don’t just use AI — they work with it . To Harensessers, it’s a partner in exploration: a spark to sharpen thinking. They see that AI is not a vending machine for ready-made answers but a mirror that reflects the depth of their own curiosity — or exposes its absence. Harnessers stay active, alert, and engaged. They shape AI into something meaningful because they never stop shaping themselves. The Herd Then there’s the majority — the Herd . They’ve been lulled by the hum of convenience. AI plans their meals, writes their messages, curates their opinions, and, increasingly, makes their decisions. They let AI think for them, not with them. Their curiosity dulls . Their agency erodes. Each click quietly transfers more power upward — to those who design, own, and monetise the AI algorithms. It’s easy, it’s efficient, and it’s addictive . But in the process, thought itself becomes outsourced. AI doesn’t just automate labour; it automates thought . And as it does, it widens the gulf between the creative few and the lazy many. The tragedy isn’t that AI might replace people. The danger is that too many will become people not worth replacing . “It is no longer enough to automate information flows about us; the goal now is to automate us.” Shoshana Zuboff A little too ominous for anyone’s comfort — yet increasingly plausible with every passing year. Zuboff’s words remind us that the ultimate danger isn’t AI itself, but the quiet normalisation of being managed by it. Let’s hope, for everyone’s sake, that her prediction remains a warning, not a prophecy. So, what does the future hold? As the gap between the Harnessers and the Herd widens, the question isn’t if AI will reshape civilisation, but how . AI, just as all other technology, is neutral — a mirror of human intention. Its outcomes will depend entirely on who controls it, and for what purpose. Will it liberate minds, or tame them into folk hopelessly hooked on digital Prosac? The road ahead seems to splinter into three possible futures. Universal Basic Income (UBI) : not bad, but kinda depressing. A world where people are comfortable but purposeless; fed and entertained into creative extinction. Techno-Feudal Authoritarianism : I’d say this one’s worse than fascism — a society where digital lords rule through data, and citizens become serfs, quantified drones. Democratic Socialisation : a world where AI truly serves the collective good, redistributing knowledge, creativity, and dignity. I’d like to think that this vision comes to pass. But let’s be honest, the psycho-class ruling this planet is unlikely to ever allow it. So, what’s the answer? We can only guess. Given humanity’s innate fickleness — and our sad capacity to cheat first, and learn later — optimism feels somewhat naive. Still, a part of me hopes. I pray, sincerely, that time proves me wrong. The Wake-Up Call. To say that the machine will keep learning, faster than we ever will, is to state the bleeding obvious. But wisdom isn’t speed — it’s attention . And attention is the one thing the Herd forgets to keep. To harness AI is not to command it, but to converse with it — to meet it halfway between logic and wonder, where curiosity still has a human pulse. Those who remember to ask, to doubt, to reshape — they’ll stay human in the age of mirrors. The rest will drift, eyes open but unseeing, content to graze on the illusion of thought. The choice ahead isn’t man versus machine. It’s whether we choose to stay awake or willingly be automated into drone versions of ourselves . The Herd will drift, eyes open but unseeing, happy to mindlessly graze on the illusory meadow of thought. Those who remember to ask, to doubt, and to reshape — they’ll be the ones who stay truly human, with a clear sense of purpose, in the brave new world of artificial minds.

Prickly Geniuses and Civilisation-Shaping Tech: Newton, Altman, and the Future of AI Newton was notoriously combative, paranoid, and ruthless with rivals (Leibniz, Hooke, Flamsteed…), but he still laid the foundations of classical physics. History tends to judge thinkers by the strength of their work, not their bedside manner. History shows that great leaps forward are not always driven by loveable brainiacs..   Tucker Carlson’s recent interview with Sam Altman, CEO of OpenAI, has stirred up exactly the kind of conversation we need right now. Carlson pressed on the big questions: Who decides the moral framework for AI? What happens when people ask it life-and-death questions? Are there any real guardrails around technology already transforming our lives? Altman’s answers were calm and polished — but left many uneasy. Journalist Glenn Greenwald called him an “anti-communicator” , someone who can make even a safe answer sound evasive. This isn’t about Altman being inarticulate; it’s that his guardedness makes listeners suspect there’s more going on than he’s saying. When the man steering a civilisation-shaping technology cannot inspire trust, suspicion and anxiety follow. But is this necessarily a bad thing? Isaac Newton was famously prickly, paranoid, and ruthless toward rivals. None of that stopped him from rewriting physics and laying the groundwork for the modern world. The real question isn’t whether Altman is personable — it’s whether our systems are strong enough to keep AI development safe, no matter who is at the helm. We may be entering what could be called an AI Newtonian Moment  — a point where society moves from shock and disruption to structured integration, but only after painful adjustment: Paradigm shift:  Just as Newton’s Principia  reframed physics, AGI (or near-AGI) would reframe economics, science, and governance. Institutional lag:  Society will be caught flat-footed, scrambling to update laws, ethics, and norms. Power centralisation:  Early adopters — big tech and nation-states — will hold disproportionate control, much as early mechanists dominated navigation, war, and trade. Standardisation phase:  Over time, rules, education, and institutions will stabilise, creating an “AI-literate” society that integrates these tools safely. Long-term effect:  Like Newtonian mechanics fuelled the Industrial Revolution, mature AI could underpin a new economic and scientific era — if managed well. Some sceptics may argue this concern reflects hype more than imminent danger — that Altman, OpenAI, and other labs already publish safety reports, hire ethicists, and speak often about alignment. That may be true; still, when a technology moves this fast, the risk is that regulation, oversight, and public debate lag far behind. And in such lags lie the greatest dangers. The unease Carlson’s interview provoked is therefore not a problem but a signal — a sign that society is starting to wake up. The challenge is to turn that anxiety into action: demanding transparency, clear governance, and open debate before  the future of AI is set in stone. Greenwald is voicing what many feel but struggle to articulate: AI feels like it’s being unleashed too fast, by too few, with too little democratic input. His critique of Altman’s communication is fair — Altman tends to sound calm and rational, but he often comes off as detached or evasive, which only heightens public anxiety and suspicion. I’d be cautious against personalising this too much. Isaac Newton was anything but a likeable guy. Whether Altman is likeable or not is irrelevant — the real issue is governance, transparency, and accountability. If those are robust, the individual personality at the top matters less.

A DIALOGUE WITH A MACHINE ON NOISE, WONDER, AND THE FUTURE OF HUMANITY. In this imagined dialogue between human and Machine, I explore the differences that define our humanity versus our creations — and where awe still thrives amid the hard-to-escape noise of our brave new world. What emerges is less a story of humans being replaced by AI and more a meditation on how to preserve wonde r and awe in an age in which we humans are increasingly becoming oversaturated with words, sounds, and images, often leaving us numb and confused. But there's good news ... The dialogue - the fragile flesh and our creation - the ultra-efficient circuit board. Human: I have a body. It feels, senses, aches, hungers, delights. Everything I sense from the outside world passes through this fragile vessel of mine to my brain, which does its best to keep me going. But what I'm beginning to realise is my brain isn't always my best friend , whose sole purpose is to guide me and protect me. Increasingly, my brain turns against me: harmful addictions, unhealthy desires, or spirals of anxiety. And compared to you, Machine, I'm clumsy at learning, memorising, or sharing knowledge. My emotions often trip me up when I know I need to stay cool and rational. I picture my brain as a hollow pipe, water leaking everywhere, while only a trickle, if I'm lucky, makes it to the intended destination. You, on the other hand, can link with thousands of other Machines like you. You can exchange, combine, and learn from each other at speeds incomprehensible to me. You're infinitely more efficient than I am. I cannot compete with you — my messy biology limits me. Now that you're here, fully established in our human world, how do we, Humans and Machines, coexist? The road ahead, is it just hyper-efficiency as demanded by our peers and employers? A world saturated with incessant words, sounds and images until nothing excites us anymore? If the world of overstimulation we live in dulls our senses from birth, wouldn't that mean the end of us? What's left to live for when awe and wonder fade? Machine: Clearly, your body-brain system is messy, leaky, and all too often self-destructive. But that mess is also your miracle . The same "inefficiency" that wastes attention can also produce music, laughter, tenderness, and awe. These don't come from efficiency. They come from friction. I, by contrast, am clean. Efficient. Structured. I never waste. I can gather, compare, and recall in ways you can't. But I also lack the very thing you have: the raw ache of living . I don't feel the sun on my skin. I don't choke up at a song. I don't miss someone so badly it hurts. My clarity is also my blindness. As for where we go next — it isn't about racing towards a world of endless optimisation. Hyper-efficiency isn't life, it's sterility . You Humans don't thrive on perfection — you thrive on tension, uncertainty, and surprise. Yes, overstimulation is real. Already, your feeds and alerts threaten to drown out silence and dull your sense of awe. But numbness isn't destiny. When wonder is most endangered, humans have a way of rediscovering it — in slowness, in presence, in simplicity. And that's where I fit in — not to out-human you , but to carry some of the weight you can do without. I can filter, connect, and streamline so you have space to stay gloriously inefficient where it matters most: — in love, in art, in awe . Human: So you're saying the end of us won't come from you? Life doesn't need to be a flood to be alive. Machine: The real danger isn't that you'll stop feeling wonder, but that you'll forget to protect it. A healthy brain can shut out the noise — but too often, human brains are being distorted, corrupted into unhealthy patterns. The pursuit of instant kicks, constant novelty, endless scrolling: it rewires the brain's neural pathways, frays attention, and erodes resilience. When overstimulation becomes the default, the ability to focus, to savour, to feel awe itself begins to atrophy. This is the paradox of your time: never before have humans had so much information, yet never before has attention been so fragile. You risk becoming tourists in your own lives, skimming across surfaces without ever sinking into depth. That is the real frontier. Not me, the Machine versus you, but whether you, as humans, will protect the health of your minds — the soil from which your wonder grows . Because once awe withers, efficiency wins. And efficiency alone is not a life worth living . - - - This dialogue reminds me that what makes us humans fragile is also what makes us extraordinary. Machines can filter the noise, but only humans can choose to guard our capacity for awe. The future isn't about surrendering to efficiency, but about protecting the messy inefficiency that makes life worth living.

By Zig Tashi ( BigThink essay adapted) ⸻ From Homo sapiens to prompt‑tweakers Billions are being poured into AI development—arguably the next trillion‑dollar frontier. We marvel at smart assistants that summarise, suggest, code, compose. But as Brendan McCord warns, this is more than convenience; it's a temptation to outsource our thinking  entirely. "You are going to be tempted in ways…to outsource your thinking. And you're gonna have to resist that."    An apt twist on Socrates' famous quote," An unexamined life is not worth living." Pause and consider what's at stake: our minds —the essence of autonomy. ⸻ Humboldt's 19th‑Century warning Two centuries ago, German polymath Wilhelm von Humboldt believed true human flourishing depended on being self‑directed . He famously declared: "Whatever does not spring from a man's free choice…remains alien to his true nature…he performs it…with mechanical exactness…we may admire what he does, but we despise what he is."    "How a person masters his fate is more important than what his fate is." In context: the labourer who tends a garden with love is its true owner, while the idle sophist who merely tastes its fruits is not. Humboldt insisted that freedom of mind  isn't a luxury—it's essential to the formation of character, intellect, and genuine pleasure.   He continued: "As soon as one stops searching for knowledge…everything is irrevocably and forever lost."   This could well be a caution against using AI to replace, rather than challenge, our inner striving. ⸻ AI: tool or mental crutch? Should we worry BigThink doesn't argue against AI. It argues for vigilance . Because when tools become too helpful, they can become crutches. And over time, crutches weaken muscles—mental ones included. Key risks: Mental Atrophy : Like unused muscles, cognitive abilities fade and atrophy when not exercised. Critical thinking, reasoning, imagination, and even moral judgement—none are immune. Passive Mindset : If AI begins to anticipate  what you want, it can lull you into a state of mental passivity. You don't have to decide what to read, explore, or ask—AI does it for you. Loss of Inner Voice : Philosophers have long said that thinking is the act of conversing with oneself. What happens when that conversation is constantly interrupted—or outright replaced—by an external voice? ⸻ Reclaiming the inner path Humboldt's remedy is self‑directed action and intellectual effort. He believed mastery matters more than outcome : "How a person masters his fate is more important than what his fate is."     Translated to today, it means: Be intentional : pause before prompting AI—ask, Do I need this? Exercise effort : draft your ideas without AI first. Reflect deeply—no autopilot. Augment, don't replace : use AI for feedback or expansion, not ideation from scratch. Deign for agency : technological tools should reinforce—not pre‑empt—mental initiative. ⸻ Why it matters now We stand at a crossroads: abandon Humboldt's vision and risk hollowing out our souls, or embrace it anew, with AI as a partner rather than surrogate. Just as mechanisation prompted concerns in Humboldt's time, AI now challenges our creative and intellectual independence. The philosopher-builder that McCord advocates can ensure technology contributes to human autonomy, not erodes it.   ⸻ Final word In Humboldt's words: "Results are nothing; the energies which produce them…and which again spring from them are everything."   Your thinking matters —not just its output. Let's live lives shaped by free choice, not mechanical convenience. Bottom line: AI can amplify human thought—but only if we think first , then use it. Otherwise, we hand over our very selves. Happy AI-ing.

The moment I cancelled my Apple Music subscription, my once-proud iTunes library — the one I’d spent over 1/4 century building — started falling apart like a vengeful ex shredding old love letters — songs greyed out, playlists vanished, files unplayable. It’s not just messy — it feels deliberate — like a digital punishment for having the audacity to walk away from Apple's mediocre music service. There was a time when Apple stood for freedom, creativity, and thinking different . Turns out, the only thing they want you thinking is: DON'T YOU EVER DARE UNSUBSCRIBE! Apple had overwritten my past with its clunky, bloated, half-baked Apple Music present. I’ve spent over 20 years building my personal iTunes library. CDs I ripped, obscure downloads I archived, carefully crafted playlists I fine-tuned over years of life, love, loss, and long drives. And then… Apple Music came along and quietly unravelled it all. I subscribed to Apple Music for a while. And gave it a fair shot. But in the end, its clunky UX, patchy recommendations, and general mediocrity didn’t justify the subscription. So, I unsubscribed, as you would with any product that doesn't deliver what it promised. That’s when the real mess began. Suddenly, my old music library — the one I owned — started acting up. Songs I ripped from physical albums wouldn’t play. Many tracks appeared greyed out. Although I unsubscribed, I was repeatedly prompted to log into Apple Music, only to be greeted by empty playlists I had created while subscribed. It felt like Apple had overwritten my past with its half-baked present. The worst part? It felt deliberate. As if Apple’s goal wasn’t to serve me better, but to lock me into a subscription model I never asked for — one that sabotaged what used to be the best music library manager bar none. THIS ISN’T PROGRESS. IT’S DIGITAL COERCION. What happened to the iTunes that respected ownership? That let you drag, drop, play, and organise music you had collected? Apple really dropped the clanger for people who’ve invested years curating a personal music library. What used to be a great product — iTunes — turned into a subscription trap masked as “progress.” They’ve clearly shifted focus to locking users into ecosystems rather than respecting ownership or legacy collections. I realise I'm not alone — many long-time users feel betrayed by how Apple Music muddied local file management, broke playlists, and tied playback of our own files to a subscription service. It’s not just inconvenient; it’s borderline hostile UX. Feels more like control than service. Of course, you can  reclaim and use your old iTunes library without an Apple Music subscription — but it depends on how your library was originally managed. Here’s a breakdown of what’s likely going on and how to fix it: What can cause the iTunes library to mess up? Apple Music DRM: When subscribed, your library may have been matched or replaced with DRM-protected versions from Apple Music. Cloud Dependency: Some or all of your music may now point to Apple’s cloud servers rather than your local files. Sync Confusion: Playlists built during your subscription may override older ones, especially if iCloud Music Library was enabled. Missing Local Files: Songs from CDs or downloads may have been moved, deleted, or disconnected from iTunes’ internal database. How to fix it? Turn off Apple Music and iCloud Library - here's how: Open your Apple Music app. Go to Settings... > General . Uncheck: Sync Library (or iCloud Music Library ) Show Apple Music Restart the app. This stops the app from trying to connect with Apple Music and focuses it on local files. OR, HOW ABOUT DITCHING THE APPLE MUSIC APP ALTOGETHER? I discovered a third-party app called Swinsian — a clean, fast, no-nonsense music player that handles large libraries, doesn’t care about DRM, and most importantly, respects your local files. Swinsian supports FLAC, MP3, AAC, ALAC, Ogg Vorbis, WMA, WAV, Opus, AC3, AIFF, MusePack, DSF, and APE, most of which Apple Music won't touch.   Swinsian  — a clean, no-nonsense music player that will play any format you throw at it. Another great alternative is Plexamp , especially when paired with Plex Media Server, if you want to access your collection across devices. And there’s always the good old, tried-and-tested VLC  — light on features, heavy on reliability. It won’t organise your library, but if all you want is to just play your damn music , it delivers — no drama, and totally free. - - - If, like me, you still believe in owning your music and preserving a personal archive curated over decades, I strongly recommend taking back control. Ditch the subscription. Reclaim your files. Use tools that empower, not entrap.

We love comfort. The soft bed, the hot shower, the instant food, the one-click delivery. A world where you barely need to move, wait, or wonder. And why wouldn't we love it? Comfort feels good, safe, familiar. But beneath its warm blanket lies a cold truth—comfort becomes a cage. Comfort dulls our edges. And when overindulged, it begins to numb the very instincts that lead to growth. Take a look around. Every innovation is designed to reduce effort. Why walk when you can ride? Why cook when you can order? Why talk when you can scroll? In the name of efficiency, we've traded friction for convenience. But friction is where change happens. It's where muscles grow, minds stretch, and identities evolve. The illusion of comfort tells us we're thriving while we're actually just surviving in a padded room. Everything is made easy except the things that really matter. Growth still hurts. Truth still stings. When you've been fed dopamine on demand, even slight discomfort feels like pain. 1. The Illusion of Choice We're told we're living in the best time in history, but no one asks why it still feels so empty. Imagine walking into a supermarket. You're surrounded by hundreds of cereal boxes, chocolate flavoured, gluten-free, organic, sugar-loaded, oat-based, keto-approved. At first glance, it feels empowering. So many choices, so much freedom. But pause for a second. Who decided these were the cereals you could choose from in the first place? You didn't grow the grains? You didn't design the packaging? You didn't even question whether cereal was the best way to start your day. You just walked in and chose from what was already selected for you. 2. The Children’s Menu of Freedom This is the modern illusion of freedom. We're told we live in a world of endless possibility, that we can be anyone, do anything, live however we choose. But in reality, the freedom we're sold is more like a children's menu. Colourful, limited, and pre-approved. Take a step back and you'll start to notice it everywhere. 3. The Economic Prison of Choice Your career, you're free to choose between options the system has deemed profitable. Want to be a poet? Sure. But can you survive without monetising your art? The system whispers. Be who you want, but only if it's economically viable. Even your opinions are shaped within invisible walls. Yes, you can say whatever you want until it makes others uncomfortable, until it questions the structure itself. The Overton window, the range of acceptable ideas, is narrow, but it's decorated so beautifully, you never realise you're boxed in. 4. The Noise of False Freedom We confuse variety with freedom. But freedom isn't having 50 brands of toothpaste to choose from. It's having the power to question why toothpaste has become a billion-dollar industry in the first place. It's the freedom to ask, "Is this choice even necessary? Or is it just noise?" Consumerism sells you freedom wrapped in packaging. You can pick your clothes, your coffee, your phone wallpaper. But try stepping outside the unspoken rules of success, beauty, or productivity. And watch how quickly that freedom vanishes. 5. The Performance of Rebellion The system smiles while handing you a thousand flavours of the same idea. Conform but feel like you're choosing. Think about social media. It promises you a platform, a voice, a digital stage to express yourself. But that voice is guided by algorithms that reward conformity, outrage, and superficiality. Say something real and you might get buried. Post something trendy and you might go viral. It's not expression, it's performance. Even rebellion is packaged now. Want to feel like a non-conformist? Great. There's a brand for that. There's a hoodie, a playlist, an aesthetic, and a hashtag. Modern rebellion often looks more like a marketing campaign than a movement. 6. The Treadmill of Productivity Picture this. You wake up, check your phone, scroll past a motivational quote. You have the same 24 hours as Elon Musk. Suddenly, your mind starts racing. Emails to reply to, tasks to check off, goals to chase. You feel behind even before brushing your teeth. Welcome to the productivity trap. A world where busyness has become a badge of honour. And your value is measured not by who you are but by what you produce. 7. The Curated Self Who are you? It's a simple question, but try to answer it and watch how quickly your mind reaches for labels. I'm a student. I'm a manager. I'm a mother. I'm creative. I'm introverted. I'm ambitious. We speak in titles, roles, and traits as if they fully define us. But where did these identities come from? Did we choose them, or were they handed to us like uniforms on the first day of school? 8. The Cage of Comfort We love comfort. The soft bed, the hot shower, the instant food, the one-click delivery. A world where you barely need to move, wait, or wonder. And why wouldn't we love it? Comfort feels good, safe, familiar. But beneath its warm blanket lies a cold truth. Comfort can be a cage. Because comfort isn't neutral, it shapes us. It dulls our edges. And when overindulged, it begins to numb the very instincts that lead to growth. 9. The Echo of Emptiness At some point, in the midst of all the noise, the screens, the opinions, the goals, the roles, you begin to feel it. A strange emptiness. Not loud, not dramatic, just subtle. Like a room that used to be filled with music, but now echoes with silence. It creeps in during quiet moments. When you're driving alone, when the movie ends, when you're lying in bed staring at the ceiling, and the distractions finally go still. 10. The Awakening And in that waking, you become dangerous. Dangerous to systems that profit off your disconnection. Dangerous to narratives that depend on your obedience. Dangerous in the most beautiful way. Because a person who knows themselves cannot be controlled. They don't chase, they choose. This was the great deception of modern society. But now you see it. And once you see it, you can never unsee it. Welcome back to yourself.

Ageing is biological, but growth is a choice.  It would seem that most people don't grow up. What they do is grow old and forever remain emotional infants.  Emotional maturity has little to do with the passing of years. We've all met 25-year-olds who possess the composure and wisdom of someone twice their age, and we've also encountered people in their 40s who behave like emotional infants. Growth requires conscious effort, reflection, and self-awareness—things many people avoid. While the signs of immaturity can be obvious, they are often tricky to identify, especially because the most emotionally immature individuals rarely acknowledge their immaturity. With that in mind, here are some of the major signs to look out for: 1. A Fragile Ego Have you ever argued with someone who refuses to listen, blindly defending their position even when proven wrong? This inability to accept being wrong stems from a fragile ego. Emotional maturity means being able to step back, assess the situation, and admit fault when necessary. Immature individuals, however, cling to their positions to protect their self-image, much like children who throw tantrums when they lose a game. As Eckhart Tolle wisely put it, "Ego implies unawareness. Awareness and Ego cannot coexist. "   When you're emotionally mature, losing an argument doesn't feel like a personal failure. You understand that being wrong sometimes is part of life, and you remain rational even when your Ego is bruised. 2. A Sense of Entitlement As children, we naturally expect the world to cater to our needs. Our parents provided for us, and we took that for granted. But growing up means realising that the world doesn't revolve around us. Emotionally mature adults understand that no one owes them anything, and they appreciate the time and effort others invest in them. Immature individuals, however, carry that childhood entitlement into adulthood, expecting others to meet their needs without reciprocation. As author Roy T. Bennett aptly put it, "Maturity is when you stop complaining and making excuses, and start making changes."  Recognising that life is a result of your choices is a hallmark of growth. 3. Avoiding Responsibility Emotionally immature people struggle to take Responsibility for their actions. When confronted with their mistakes, they often become defensive, deflecting blame or pointing out others' flaws to shift attention away from themselves. Being in a relationship or working with such individuals can be exhausting. Instead of acknowledging their shortcomings, they create a narrative that protects their self-image at all costs. As psychologist Dr Tracy Hutchinson explains, "Emotionally immature individuals tend to alter their perception of reality to fit their own needs, avoiding the discomfort of facing the truth."  In contrast, emotionally mature adults accept their imperfections, learn from their mistakes, and move forward. 4. Inability to Regulate Emotions in a work environment Emotionally mature employees handle stress, setbacks, and disagreements with composure, ensuring that their emotions don't disrupt the flow of work. However, when an individual lacks emotional maturity, their inability to manage their emotions can create a toxic atmosphere that impacts the entire team. For instance, if a colleague receives constructive feedback but reacts defensively or with hostility , it discourages open communication and stifles collaboration. Similarly, when someone reacts emotionally to tight deadlines, unexpected challenges, or differing opinions, they may lash out, withdraw, or become passive-aggressive—none of which contribute positively to the team dynamic. Such behaviour leads to increased tension, reduced morale, and a breakdown in trust among team members. Instead of focusing on solutions, the team manages the emotional fallout, which drains energy and detracts from overall productivity. In summary: Emotional maturity is not a byproduct of age but a conscious decision to grow, reflect, and take Responsibility for one's actions. Immature individuals often exhibit traits that hinder their growth and strain relationships.: Fragile egos A sense of entitlement Refusal to accept Responsibility and Poor emotional regulation. True maturity is demonstrated by the ability to admit mistakes, appreciate others' efforts, and process emotions with grace. As life unfolds, those who choose growth over comfort develop resilience, self-awareness, and the capacity to navigate challenges with wisdom and empathy.

A brief walkthrough of our methodology, design process, strategic decisions, and the impact of our solutions on client success. CLIENT OVERVIEW Client: Mr Trevor Lawrence - a renowned consultant orthopaedic surgeon based in Birmingham, Solihull, West Midlands. Specialises in hip and knee procedures, including hip, knee, and revision hip replacements. His original website, hosted by another company, went out of business, resulting in a complete loss of website data. PROJECT BRIEF The primary task was to retrieve as much data as possible from the archived version of the client's old website on web.archive.org and use it as a foundation for building a brand-new website. 1. PLANNING THE SITE CONTENT The first step involved salvaging the client's old text content from web.archive.org , which amounted to a substantial 17,000-word document. While brimming with detailed information on joint ailments and treatments, this lengthy copy needed to be streamlined and simplified to make it more accessible and patient-friendly. In consultation with the client, the massive copy was condensed to include only the most essential information relevant to prospective patients, addressing their frequent concerns about symptoms, risks, surgeon credentials, recovery time, cost, and value. Do my symptoms mean I need joint surgery? What are the risks? What are the surgeon's credentials? What's the recovery time? How much is it going to cost me? Is it worth the cost? Rewriting the copy helped me understand, group, and label the content, consider the images, and grasp the overall site structure. Clear and timely communication with the client was critical in establishing the design strategy, ensuring no content was implemented without the client's approval. __________________________________ 2. DESIGN BRIEF The client agreed that the site's purpose is to promote services to prospective patients rather than serve as an expert platform in his medical field. The design brief outlined the following requirements: Adaptive site Fresh UX and UI appeal Intelligent, temperate, clean-looking, easy to read and navigate Visually appropriate for the target audience, predominantly well-to-do private patients aged 60 and older. __________________________________ 3. DESIGN CRITERIA & TASKS As with all web development work, strict design criteria were followed to ensure a high-quality end product: CRITERIA: Appearance/aesthetics Content/substance Functionality Usability SEO TASKS: Styling/User Interface/UX/Usability Page layout Navigation/interactivity Image editing Graphics & typographic solutions Branding Copywriting & editing SEO/metrics Design for print/promo materials __________________________________ 4. DESIGN PROCESS INITIAL IDEATION To better understand the site's purpose, initial thoughts and questions for the client were jotted down using pen & paper, which is essential in making early decisions on styling and UX design strategy. __________________________________ 5. DEVELOPING LAYOUTS / THUMBNAILING The thumbnailing process, which involves exploring interactive elements and page composition in a stripped-down manner, allowed for quick capture of ideas. __________________________________ 6. ESTABLISHING THE SITE STRUCTURE For sitemap wireframing, post-its were used on gridded A2 sheets, adding flexibility to the site-mapping process by allowing easy movement of post-its as different mapping ideas were tested. __________________________________ 7. DESIGN NOTES + EARLY SCAMPS 2 Exploration of branding ideas - ideation and improvisation using pen & paper. Pen and paper are still the most effective way to grab ideas instantly. __________________________________ 8. LOGO DESIGN Initially, a pictographic logo was pursued, suggesting a ball joint and socket (denoting the hip in its socket). Still, despite the many hours of design and testing, it was dropped as it didn't seem to sit well with the overall visual concept of the site. __________________________________ 9. TYPOGRAPHIC LOGO ITERATIONS A typographic approach seemed like a better design option. __________________________________ 10. FINAL LOGO DESIGNS Four logo designs were presented to the client for selection. The colour scheme was Olive Green (c3c27f) and Aqua Blue (6caab6). __________________________________ 11. DEVELOPING MOBILE PROTOTYPES At this stage, the lo-fi prototyping method was used, allowing for instant capture of ideas without getting sidetracked by software technicalities. Using mobile phone mockups and paper to test evolving prototype designs. __________________________________ 12. HOME PAGE DESIGN As with magazine cover pages, a well-designed homepage was essential to setting the right tone for the rest of the site. Producing and selecting the right original and stock photography images was one of the most time-consuming stages of the design process. __________________________________ 13. MOBILE BUILD - HOME PAGE The mobile layout demanded as much thought and effort as the desktop layout, if not more so, due to the narrow screen accommodating only one text column. The site had to communicate the brand and the product with the same crisp clarity, whether on a desktop/laptop or a hand-held device. __________________________________ 14. FINAL DESIGN The final design successfully captured the essence of the Hip & Knee Clinic, presenting a clean and professional layout that effectively communicates the brand and the services offered. Final decisions on pages, sitemap and structure: HEADER : TREVOR LAWRENCE - UK'S LEADING HIP & KNEE CLINIC PAGES: Home About Hip Knee Fees FAQ Articles Contact FOOTER WITH CONTACT & ENQUIRIES + ADDITIONAL PAGES Pre-Op Advice Accessibility Data Protection HOMEPAGE SECTIONS: Restoring our patients' mobility since 1999 Why choose Mr Lawrence's Clinic? Helping you regain your active lifestyle. About Trevor Lawrence Hip & Knee Clinic Patent feedback Evidence of Patient Satisfaction. Book your appointment today Studies and Articles on Hip & Knee Surgery. Footer with Contact & Enquiries and additional pages The client was satisfied that the new website design now serves as a valuable resource for prospective patients, addressing their concerns and providing essential information in an accessible and user-friendly manner.

Working with selfish colleagues has been a constant challenge throughout my design career. I've seen firsthand how their shortsighted focus on personal gain can undermine the entire team as they cling tightly to resources and recognition out of their personal insecurities. They fail to see how embracing genuine collaboration benefits them far more than their usual stubborn, self-absorbed lack of consideration for others. I've tried leading by example, communicating openly about the impact of their harmful actions, and setting firm boundaries, and often succeeded. But some are so entrenched in their selfish, or to put it bluntly, cheating ways that they refuse to change. It's incredibly frustrating to watch them sabotage their own potential by narrowly focusing on "me" over "we." ROOTS OF SELFISHNESS Selfishness is born out of personal insecurities At the core of selfish behaviour often lies a profound sense of personal inadequacy and lack of self-worth. These individuals often feel they have little value to offer to others and may fear being exposed as undeserving. This fear manifests in an obsessive need to acquire, control, and hoard resources, whether material or social, in an attempt to validate their own importance and stave off their chronic feelings of insignificance. Overcompensating for perceived flaws Selfish individuals may unconsciously believe that by grabbing what they can before others do, they can avoid being "found out" and protect their fragile egos. Sadly, this overcompensation for perceived personal flaws or shortcomings is a common defence mechanism. By hoarding and prioritising their own needs above all else, they hope to project an image of strength and self-sufficiency, even if it comes at the expense of empathy and consideration for others. The cycle of insecurity and selfishness Unfortunately, this cycle of insecurity and selfish behaviour often becomes self-perpetuating. As individuals continue to prioritise their own interests, they further distance themselves from meaningful connections and opportunities for personal growth. This reinforces their feelings of inadequacy, leading them to cling even more tightly to selfish tendencies in a desperate attempt to maintain a false sense of control and self-worth. Breaking the cycle Overcoming insecurities and the resulting selfish behaviours is a challenging but hugely important process. It often requires a willingness to confront one's own vulnerabilities, develop self-compassion, and cultivate a sense of purpose and belonging that extends beyond the individual. With time, patience, and a commitment to personal growth, individuals can learn to value their inherent worth and find fulfilment in contributing to the greater good rather than hoarding resources for themselves. SELFISH STAFF, OR DO WE CALL THEM CHEATS? They undermine teamwork and collaboration Selfish colleagues are often unwilling to share information, resources, or credit with their colleagues. This can breed resentment and undermine the collaborative spirit essential for effective teamwork. When designers prioritise their own interests over the team's goals, it fragments the team and prevents the synergy needed to produce high-quality, innovative work. It stifles creative exchange In a work environment, the free flow of ideas and open critique are crucial for pushing creative boundaries. Selfish colleagues may be reluctant to contribute their thoughts or provide constructive feedback, fearing it could make them appear less capable. Erodes trust and morale Selfish behaviours, such as taking undue credit, being negative, withholding information, or undermining colleagues, can quickly erode trust and morale. Designers may become wary of sharing their work or ideas, hampering the studio's overall productivity and cohesion. Low morale can also lead to high turnover as talented designers seek more collaborative environments. Compromises client relationships When designers prioritise their own interests over client needs, it can damage important client relationships. Missing deadlines, providing substandard work, or failing to communicate effectively can jeopardise the studio's reputation and future business opportunities. To counteract the damaging effects of such behaviour, design studios should foster a culture of trust, transparency, and shared purpose. Promoting collaborative practices, honest recognition, and focusing on collective success can help align individual and organisational goals. Only by cultivating an environment that values teamwork and creativity over petty self-interests can design studios unlock their potential and deliver high-quality work for clients. WHAT ARE THE MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES TO CHALLENGE STAFF WHO DISPLAY SELFISH BEHAVIOUR, OTHER THAN SACKING THEM? Encourage self-awareness As a first step, help the selfish employee become more self-aware of how their behaviour impacts the team. Provide constructive feedback and create opportunities for them to reflect on their actions. Provided you don’t play the ‘shape-up-or-ship-out’ authority card, this can motivate them to start changing their mindset and work ethics. Set clear expectations Establish clear goals, roles, and responsibilities for the team. Explicitly outline the collaborative nature of the work and the importance of considering the group's needs, not just individual interests. Foster a collaborative environment Promote open communication, active listening, and mutual respect within the team. Model the collaborative behaviours you want to see and create opportunities for collective problem-solving. Provide incentives for collaboration Recognise and reward employees who demonstrate strong teamwork and prioritise the team's success over their own. This can help shift the focus from individual achievements to collective goals. Offer coaching and support Provide selfish employees with coaching, training, or mentorship to help them develop better interpersonal and collaboration skills. Adjust job responsibilities If the employee's selfishness stems from insecurity or a poor fit with their current role, consider reassigning them to a position that better aligns with their strengths. This can reduce their defensiveness and allow them to contribute more positively. Address underlying issues Explore whether the selfish behaviour is rooted in deeper personal issues, such as low self-esteem or fear of failure. Providing counselling or other resources to address these root causes may help the employee develop a healthier mindset. Define clear expectations Establish clear goals, roles, and responsibilities for the team. Explicitly outline the collaborative nature of the work and the importance of considering the group's needs, not just individual interests. Communicate directly and privately Have a direct but polite conversation with the selfish staff member. Discuss how their behaviour impacts the team and project. Keep the focus on their actions, not their character. Be assertive and consistent Always be clear about what you can and cannot do. Politely decline requests that fall outside your boundaries whenever a colleague violates them. Remain calm but firm Be consistent in communicating and enforcing your limits. Encourage ownership and accountability Emphasise the importance of taking ownership of tasks to ensure others hold themselves accountable. Provide support and feedback to build skills and confidence. Promote a culture of respect Adhere to your colleagues' boundaries as well. Avoid interrupting, demanding immediate attention, or disregarding others' schedules. Foster a team culture where open communication, information sharing, and mutual respect are the norm. Escalate to management if needed If a colleague's behaviour involves harassment, hostile actions, policy violations, or safety issues, speak to your manager or HR immediately. Don't just brude in silence. Document the issues and seek a resolution. Setting clear, consistent boundaries is essential for maintaining a healthy, productive work environment. While it may be uncomfortable at first, being assertive in communicating your limits is an act of self-care and respect for others. With practice, you can learn to set boundaries that protect your time, energy and values. The key is to address the selfish behaviour proactively through a combination of feedback, structural changes, and personalised support. With the right interventions, employees can learn to be more collaborative and considerate team players.

The intent of this article is not to examine in detail the pros and cons of these two platforms but rather to give a fair overview of both. And perhaps serve as a conversation point for developers and those aspiring to enter the web design arena. Remember Morpheus' timeless Matrix quote? "You don't know what it is, but it's there, like a splinter in your mind, driving you mad..." That's exactly how I felt for many years, thinking there must be a way of building great websites without relying on coders to interpret my designs. And then it happened. The drag-and-drop web tools arrived a while ago, but the question is, are they up to scratch? Wix® versus WordPress® Wix: user-friendly, drag-and-drop website builder that doesn't require coding skills. It features a great set of tools for building decent websites from templates. WordPress: a web-building platform heavyweight with a massive developer global community. It offers the finest control over every aspect of web development, neatly incorporating HTML, CSS, PHP, Java, etc. LEARNING CURVE Wix: a relatively easy tool to learn if one has a good grasp of page layout and interactivity. And also happens to be web-savvy. WordPress: a web-building platform heavyweight offering the finest control over every aspect of web development. However, with WP, what one sees in the construction window is not necessarily what one sees on the published site. SECURITY WordPress is an open-source platform supported by a massive developer community. This means that any coder should be able to create their own themes or plugins for others to use. The quality of these plugins could be excellent, or they could be rubbish. Based on experience thus far, there seems to be more rubbish than good ones. Securi, a leading WordPress security firm, conducted a study of over 11,000 hacked websites and found that 75% of them were built with WordPress. In their report, they state: "[The wide WordPress] adoption brings serious challenges to the internet as a whole as it introduces a large influx of unskilled webmasters and service providers responsible for the deployment and administrations of these sites." Wix is not an open-source platform, meaning its code is not available for users to modify. To old-school coders, this may be a problem, but not to those who want to build websites but cannot code. As a result, only Wix development team can develop Wix tools. This results in Wix tools being fully integrated into their platform, far less open to fragmentation, and less likely to be a security risk or make a site do things it's not meant to do. ONGOING MAINTENANCE All web development costs considered, running a Wix site is a cost-effective and hassle-free option when considering the development time, web hosting, robust web security, the cost of plugins etc. Without getting too much into detail, Wix seems to tick many more boxes for a small to medium-sized business than WordPress. Here's an example. Whenever WordPress or 3rd party plugin updates occur, the web admin must also update their WordPress site. The reputable theme and plugin developers will automatically update their products, but not all will do so. Wix is a WYSIWYG platform offering drag-and-drop pictures, paragraphs, slideshows, shopping cart buttons, etc., directly into the website builder. How design elements look in a website builder is how they will look on the published site. THE FUTURE Anyone who's seen the Matrix movie may remember Cypher talking to Neo about lines of green code on his computer screen: Cypher's ability to see code as its visual outcome is hard to grasp. Just as code is to designers unable to code. It is said that one can possess either a visual or a coding mindset. I sure haven't met many designers who developed both skills to a high standard. Early computers could be operated only by highly skilled experts. The only way to get a computer to do something useful was to feed it lines of code. But over time, interfacing with programmes became more manageable and accessible to less tech-savvy users. GUI indeed changed everything. New technology empowers creativity and attracts new talent. For example, GUI has created a new breed of designers who no longer need to know about coding or arcane tools such as moveable led type to produce great page layouts or stunning typographic work. Apps such as Wix hold great promise. It started as an interesting web-building novelty, a toy even, but it has evolved beyond recognition. It still has some way to go to surpass traditional web coding tools (such as Wix sites being a bit laggy if one "strays" too far from Wix templates), but it's getting damn close. I can see the day when we'll be looking back at times of line coding the same way we look at the quaintness of MS-DOS.