Simple answer: it's easily reviewable by a human, which will always be an important step in the process of building software, no matter how many hype conferences tell you to stop checking AI output irresponsibly.

That's not good, Cloudflare. Shame on you.

Insert gaping soyjak face.

That keyboard layout is a deal breaker for me. Why do companies have to change things up all the time? Why can't they just go with T-shaped arrow keys and a standard layout?

It completely dwarfs the otherwise great hardware.

Are you referring to the UK layout? Or the keys on the side? It's all tradeoffs but full size cursor keys and a line of line/page keys are arguably as good as it gets.

Specifically the line/page keys. I guess I've gotten used to MacBooks for so many years that I'm fine with pressing a modifier key and the arrow keys to navigate that way.

I'd rather do that than accidentally keep pressing "Home" instead of Backspace.

With this, I'd have to look down at my keyboard all the time to make sure I'm not mistakenly pressing those keys, because the hand is used to "resetting" on the edges of the keyboard to get a feel for the keys I expect to find on the edges: Enter, Shift, Arrow Keys, etc.

It throws off the brain's muscle memory big time.

You'll probably get used to it in a week or so. I prefer separate keys however there's usually not enough room, so this is a good compromise.

I'm still waiting for Volkswagen to do this after stating the same plan not long ago.

Judging by Anthropic's track record for sloppy, buggy software, I can't see this taking off quite as well as people might think, when compared to Figma and its captive customer base.

Figma actually put the work in to make a great product that performs well and offers anything you could imagine to design just about anything you need, with AI integrations and deep manual editing to sweat the details.

I agree somewhat, there's a common language for building products that most people understand and expect.

Innovation comes from the ways people differentiate, without straying too far from the tried-and-true patterns. It's the tiny decisions that situate UI elements and yes, reinvent the wheel sometimes, that can tip users over to whatever you're building because you did it better, or in a way "most" (the average) never thought of.

If people aren't creative in how it works, then really they're all just making the same, boring products, without truly competing against anyone in a meaningful way in the problem space. Visual appeal isn't a sole differentiator.

I'm not sure they don't care anymore, as much as they experienced the same pressure every company faced when AI went mainstream.

Had they not included support for it, where would they be now? I'd wager a critical mass would be screeching to High Heaven for integrations, seeing as a Figma document is effectively a config file that can be translated to real code.

They never integrated it like that properly though they just made a text to app thing called Figma Make

Hard disagree. There's more to UX than pushing pixels around. Usability, accessibility, and capturing the broader customer experience at 40,000 ft isn't a trivial process when you're designing a large product (or suite of products) especially.

These areas obviously tie into engineering very closely, but the thinking that goes into them happens at the design stage, at a lower cost than starting with engineering. AI models suck at getting every facet of this process right, because designers are achieving a balance between branding, usability, standards, taste, and differentiation -- the exact opposite of a model trained to reach for the most average outputs.

I think the target market for this is small businesses wanting to throw together quick concepts without needing to hire a contractor necessarily. This smells more like Squarespace and what they did for brochure websites / portfolios than anything else, but perhaps more general purpose.