World
Joined November 2011
- Tweets4.8K
- Following745
- Followers1.3K
- Likes2.9K
Lo vi moviendo los labios y me tenté
We’ve raised $1.3M from YC & Afore Capital so you never have to type or speak again.
Typing is slow. Talking into your computer is awkward. Subvocal fixes both
Our glasses give you the speed of speech without you making a sound or touching a keyboard.
It tracks your internal speech muscles with non-contact sensing and decodes silent, almost invisible mouthing into text at more than 200 words/min.
Pre-orders are now live at:
subvocal.co/preorder?utm_sou…
What nobody is telling you is that the reason it's fast for Revolut to design solely with an LLM is that they already did the hard work:
They built a well crafted design system on a solid brand foundation, then put it into code with all the tokens, components, and rules the model can actually read.
All of that was possible thanks to a group of beautiful humans with taste and strong opinions.
Only then can you talk about designing something serious at that scale entirely from an LLM.
I challenge you to take Nik's approach without doing the hard work first and expect the same results.
Revolut's designers are moving off Figma.
Storonsky spotted one team designing much faster than the others. What they did:
1. Gave an LLM Revolut's design system at the code level
2. Prompted it to build new flows on top of that system
3. Got a live interface they can click through on a laptop or phone, instead of static frames
Result: 3-4x faster. Now he's pushing it to every designer at Revolut.
His job, as he describes it: find what works in one team and spread it across the company.
Full breakdown here:
productmarketfit.tech/p/revo…
I have a simple rule when iterating with AI: if round 3 isn't clearly better than round 2, I stop and return to round 1.
Beyond that point, it may keep changing things, but the results tend to move sideways. It can happily polish forever.
Knowing when something is done is a decision only you can make.
Lately, my loop has been to explore ideas in Figma, then build the real thing with Claude Code through the Figma MCP. After that, though, Figma can start to fall out of date.
If code layers could bring what's live back into the file, Figma might become a place I return to check the real product, instead of just where ideas begin.
Curious how it works with an existing design system
Design & code, finally together on the canvas thanks to Code Layers
→ Turn a design layer into an interactive code layer
→ Capture what's live on your website as a code layer with Chrome Extension
→ Duplicate a code layer to explore multiple directions side by side
→ Drop your prototype into a code layer via Figma MCP
Siento que a los diseñadores nos vendieron que dominar herramientas era el moat, y ahora que todo cambia cada tres meses, muchos se la agarran contra la IA.
Pero si vamos al caso, el criterio para decidir qué construir y cómo hacerlo es lo único que me acompaño en estos 14 años
Agree very much with him. The founders I enjoy working with most are the ones who care almost too much about what they're making.
That care translates into the product, and users feel it, even when they can't name it
This makes sense as an investor observation but I don’t want to celebrate it as advice for founders.
There’s something dispiriting about treating people’s passion for their work as a problem. Is that really what we want to see in the world which already has enough mercenaries?
Vanta is a great business, and I know Christina cares about the problem she’s solving.
But I don’t way to celebrate this framing.
I want founders to keep trying to do great things. To make something they care about better, and find out how much they can contribute.
Investors should fund that ambition.
Building got cheap. Deciding what's worth building is as hard as it was ten years ago.
Maybe harder, because now you can skip the thinking part and still get something that runs.
When an agent writes most of the code, the clearest expression of your authorship lies in what you choose to ship, and what you choose to cut.
That is what you're accountable for, and people can tell when no one has truly taken ownership
For the last feature I designed, I didn't send any Figma screens. Zero. Nada.
Instead, I shared a working prototype that shows how everything looks and behaves, so the team can implement it as is.
Now I spend most of my time working deeply with Claude and the team to understand and solve the problem, while challenging their reasoning. I barely design directly in Figma, because I prefer handing over something the team can run, not something they can only interpret.
My value didn't change. What changed is where I stand.
I feel like I'm in the same place as the engineers, on the hook for building something that works with obsessive care for details. For a founder, that means the design decisions reach the product without getting lost on the way.
That's how I'm working with startups nowadays, and I love it.
Todo el mundo está hablando de que con IA cualquiera puede construir un producto. Yo creo que eso va a terminar trayendo una purga, y los que más van a sufrir son los productos que están en el medio.
Siento que van a quedar los extremos. Por un lado, esas herramientas enterprise aburridas, distantes, y sin alma que usás porque tu empresa te obliga a hacerlo. Por el otro, productos muy cuidados, cercanos, con identidad propia, que da placer usar.
Lo del medio, lo que solo funciona y se ve como cualquier otra cosa, es lo que más fácil se reproduce con IA.
Si diseñas producto, me preguntaría de qué lado te encontrás.
convergence to the mean
when everyone looks at everyone else to decide what to make, we eventually stop making anything of our own.
we copy what works. borrow the language, the aesthetic, the features. we call it learning from the market, following best practices, staying competitive. together, everything starts to feel familiar. polished, interchangeable. nothing wrong. nothing alive.
the mean isn’t necessarily bad. it’s where everything lands when we remove the reasons for it to be different.
numbers are easier to compare than feelings, so we make things that produce numbers. we study what gets attention, then shape ourselves around it. eventually the feedback stops informing the work and starts authoring it. we’re no longer asking what we want to say. we’re asking what will be rewarded for saying.
ai makes this loop frictionless. it can draw from more references than we could see in a lifetime. but access to every perspective isn’t the same as having one. it hasn’t lived a particular life that makes one detail unbearable and another beautiful. when we ask it to choose for us without bringing any intention of our own, we get something plausible, easy to approve.
then we ship it, measure it, copy it, and feed it back into the next round. a tidal wave of mid.
this changes not just the work, but the people making it.
we describe ourselves in categories platforms can distribute and markets understand. designer. founder. creator. pick a niche. build a brand. be consistent. the parts that don’t fit become inconvenient, even when those contradictions might produce our most interesting work. we become easier to classify and harder to tell apart.
i think we need to approach making things more like artists.
an artist develops a perspective through the work. making, noticing, choosing, failing, returning. learning what matters even when nobody else cares. craft gives that perspective a form precise enough for someone else to experience.
the life outside the work matters too. the places you’ve lived, the people you’ve loved, the things you’re embarrassed to care about. these aren’t distractions from having something to say. they’re how you come to have something to say.
we understand this with music, paintings, photographs, movies. we expect a person to be present in the choices. we want to experience something we wouldn’t have encountered without them.
software can do this too.
a piece of software expresses beliefs about how life should feel. what deserves your attention. what you should be free to change. whether a task should feel like paperwork or play. even a small interaction can carry someone’s care, humor, or curiosity.
but we rarely talk about software as a medium. we talk about it as an industry. markets to capture, workflows to optimize, competitors to catch up with. we add a feature because someone else has it, without asking whether it belongs. products accumulate the same parts and lose what made them worth choosing.
underneath the branding, it’s all the same thing.
artists learn from others too. the question is whether you’re absorbing those influences into a point of view, or using them to avoid developing one.
what are you trying to let someone feel, understand, or do? why this particular shape? what have you noticed that the existing tools don’t seem to notice?
those questions don’t have answers you can borrow from a competitor’s roadmap.
if we can make almost anything, deciding what deserves to exist becomes more important, not less. speed gives us more chances to exercise judgment. it doesn’t remove the responsibility.
i don’t want a world where every person becomes a more efficient distributor of the same ideas. i want people to use these tools to go further into what they actually care about. to make things specific enough that we can feel someone behind them.
what is the point of everyone being able to make something, if we all end up making the same thing?
One of the worst mistakes I made when I started building something on my own was focusing on the audience first.
Growing an audience eats a lot of time and energy, and you're not making any money while you do it. Find customers first, work with them, and understand what hurts. Build the audience in parallel.
Epic is reportedly telling the developer team "no more hand-written code"
When anyone can design and code, the execution stops being what makes a product different. What's left are the decisions we make behind the front: knowing what's worth building and who we're building for.
Yo. Todo por haber elegido continuar con lo que más amaba hacer a los 13 años: diseñar.
che, son felices con con la profesión que eligieron? la mitad de mis amigos y yo (todos 30) nos arrepentimos 100% de haber estudiado lo que estudiamos, estamos viendo cambiar de rubro (por gusto, y temas economicos y bla) nos sentimos frustrados, tenemos un poco de miedo. No sé si conozco a alguien que AME lo que hace pero siento que a los 18/20 elegís algo y que después es MUY difícil que justo sea la mejor decisión.