AMA Design created the Häfele showroom in Bucharest featuring a meticulously designed spaces showcasing furniture components with special movable display...

I like the job title “Design Engineer”. When required to label myself, I feel partial to that term (I should, I’ve written about it enough). Lately I’ve felt like the term is becoming more mainstream which, don’t get me wrong, is a good thing. I appreciate the diversification of job titles, especially ones that look to stand in the middle between two binaries. But — and I admit this is a me issue — once a title starts becoming mainstream, I want to use it less and less. I was never totally sure why I felt this way. Shouldn’t I be happy a title I prefer is gaining acceptance and understanding? Do I just want to rebel against being labeled? Why do I feel this way? These were the thoughts simmering in the back of my head when I came across an interview with the comedian Brian Regan where he talks about his own penchant for not wanting to be easily defined: I’ve tried over the years to write away from how people are starting to define me. As soon as I start feeling like people are saying “this is what you do” then I would be like “Alright, I don't want to be just that. I want to be more interesting. I want to have more perspectives.” [For example] I used to crouch around on stage all the time and people would go “Oh, he’s the guy who crouches around back and forth.” And I’m like, “I’ll show them, I will stand erect! Now what are you going to say?” And then they would go “You’re the guy who always feels stupid.” So I started [doing other things]. He continues, wondering aloud whether this aversion to not being easily defined has actually hurt his career in terms of commercial growth: I never wanted to be something you could easily define. I think, in some ways, that it’s held me back. I have a nice following, but I’m not huge. There are people who are huge, who are great, and deserve to be huge. I’ve never had that and sometimes I wonder, ”Well maybe it’s because I purposely don’t want to be a particular thing you can advertise or push.” That struck a chord with me. It puts into words my current feelings towards the job title “Design Engineer” — or any job title for that matter. Seven or so years ago, I would’ve enthusiastically said, “I’m a Design Engineer!” To which many folks would’ve said, “What’s that?” But today I hesitate. If I say “I’m a Design Engineer” there are less follow up questions. Now-a-days that title elicits less questions and more (presumed) certainty. I think I enjoy a title that elicits a “What’s that?” response, which allows me to explain myself in more than two or three words, without being put in a box. But once a title becomes mainstream, once people begin to assume they know what it means, I don’t like it anymore (speaking for myself, personally). As Brian says, I like to be difficult to define. I want to have more perspectives. I like a title that befuddles, that doesn’t provide a presumed sense of certainty about who I am and what I do. And I get it, that runs counter to the very purpose of a job title which is why I don’t think it’s good for your career to have the attitude I do, lol. I think my own career evolution has gone something like what Brian describes: Them: “Oh you’re a Designer? So you make mock-ups in Photoshop and somebody else implements them.” Me: “I’ll show them, I’ll implement them myself! Now what are you gonna do?” Them: “Oh, so you’re a Design Engineer? You design and build user interfaces on the front-end.” Me: “I’ll show them, I’ll write a Node server and setup a database that powers my designs and interactions on the front-end. Now what are they gonna do?” Them: “Oh, well, we I’m not sure we have a term for that yet, maybe Full-stack Design Engineer?” Me: “Oh yeah? I’ll frame up a user problem, interface with stakeholders, explore the solution space with static designs and prototypes, implement a high-fidelity solution, and then be involved in testing, measuring, and refining said solution. What are you gonna call that?” [As you can see, I have some personal issues I need to work through…] As Brian says, I want to be more interesting. I want to have more perspectives. I want to be something that’s not so easily definable, something you can’t sum up in two or three words. I’ve felt this tension my whole career making stuff for the web. I think it has led me to work on smaller teams where boundaries are much more permeable and crossing them is encouraged rather than discouraged. All that said, I get it. I get why titles are useful in certain contexts (corporate hierarchies, recruiting, etc.) where you’re trying to take something as complicated and nuanced as an individual human beings and reduce them to labels that can be categorized in a database. I find myself avoiding those contexts where so much emphasis is placed in the usefulness of those labels. “I’ve never wanted to be something you could easily define” stands at odds with the corporate attitude of, “Here’s the job req. for the role (i.e. cog) we’re looking for.” Email · Mastodon · Bluesky

The Department of Bed Intentions is the world’s first fully sustainable microbiome-friendly prebiotic personal lubricant. The brand shakes up the...

Excuse my rant. Nobel-prize winning CEO of DeepMind, Demis Hassabis, was on 60 Minutes and floored me when he predicted: We can cure all diseases with the help of AI. [The end of disease] is within reach, maybe within the next decade or so. I don't see why not. “I don’t see why not” is doing a lot of work in that sentence. As I’m sure you know from working on problems, “I don’t see why not” moments are usually followed by, “Actually this is going to be a bit harder that we thought…” If you want to call me a skeptic, that’s fine. But “the end of disease” in the next decade is some ostentatious claim chowder IMHO. As one of the YouTube comments says: The goodies are always just another 5-10 years ahead, aren't they Generally speaking, I tend to regard us humans as incredibly short-sighted. So if I had to place a wager, I’d put my money on the end of disease not happening in the next decade (against my wishes, of course). But that’s not really how AI predictions work. You can’t put wagers on them, because AI predictions aren’t things you get held accountable for. “Yeah, when I said that, I added ‘I don’t see why not’ but we quickly realized that X was going to be an issue and now I’m going to have to qualify that prediction. Once we solve X, I don’t see why not.” And then “once we solve _Y_”. And then Z. “Ok, phew, we solved Z we’re close.” And then AA. And AB. And AC. And… I get it, it’s easy to sit here and play the critic. I’m not the “man in the arena”. I’m not a Nobel-prize winner. I just want to bookmark this prediction for an accountability follow-up in April 2035. If I’m wrong, HOORAY! DISEASE IS ENDED!!! I WILL GLADLY EAT MY HAT! But if not, does anyone’s credibility take a hit? You can’t just say stuff that’s not true and continue having credibility. Unless you’re AI, of course. Email · Mastodon · Bluesky

Weekly curated resources for designers — thinkers and makers.