"You don't actually know any Millennials, do you?"

"Oh, Yves :\"

"I made a venn diagram to illustrate an assumption I have"

"Not mentioning Jake Evill's 'Cortex' 3D printed arm cast was a mistake.  That's a perfect example of well-executed GD driving a _better_ aesthetic than I've ever seen in a perfectly appropriate application."

"I really like the shotgun vs. rifle analogy here, and feel like it deserves another visit after SK's comments re: ducks:"As for shotguns and rifles, it all depends what you are shooting at. If you are going for ducks, shotguns will do, as ducks fly in a group (products too are similar and belong to groups). It's satisfactory if you bring one of those flying fellows down. With a rifle, if you get the target wrong, it is a miss. It's wrong to assume that you know exactly what will succeed, so a rifle approach is a gambling approach. Gamblers always believe they will win, or else they wouldn't gamble. But companies have less and less use for gamblers. This is a reality that few would argue with."For the type of design work that I most commonly do, it would take more time to teach a generative design tool all of the constraints than it would take for me to sketch virtually all of the reasonable permutations of a design, given the constraints put forth by material limitations, industry standards, the client, and DMFA limitations.  To further the shotgun/rifle/wildlife analogy, I'm not shooting at a flock of ducks (or a raft of ducks, if they happen to be swimming at the time of the hypothetical shooting).  Rather, I'm in a thickly wooded forest with a single small rabbit about 300m away.  If I were to use a shotgun to hunt this rabbit, I would be relying on the minuscule chance that one of the pellets of the blast would find its course and hit the rabbit.  If I instead spend my time getting in position and fixing my sights on the rabbit, I'm not "gambling" because I'm using only one bullet, I'm using the right tool for the job and spending my time on aiming rather then throwing more lead down-range.Now, yes, I'm referring to a highly-constrained design scenario with more limitations than possibilities, which isn't representative of the entire profession of "Industrial Design". But if you're wondering why ID folks are more reluctant to adopt GD into their routine or toolkit, its because we usually have much less artistic license with our work than Architects.  True architecture projects (innovative, new, ground-up buildings) don't have to follow a brand language.  They don't have to please a single opinionated project manager.  They don't have to be marketed to a specific demographic.  They aren't beholden to as many constraints on the overall design as your typical ID project in reality.  Sure, designers sometimes have to make a new bluetooth speaker.  Yes, GD might be a great tool to quickly process thousands of permutations and down-select for such a project.Just keep in mind, designers also have to design the tray table on the back of an existing airplane seat, and that tray table has to pass 16g dynamic FEA testing, head-impact criteria, flammability requirements, certified material limitations, use only hardware from approved NAS catalogs, match the existing legacy upper literature pocket design, and integrate seamlessly with the vacuum-formed kydex panels surrounding it.  No, I don't think I'll subject a computer algorithm to that task.  I believe I'll use my finely-tuned and experienced designer brain to do designer things and not plug variables into a spreadsheet for 16 hours to get to the same result and have to touch it up in the end anyway."

"wrench one will also get you pulled over with a quickness"

"Simon, I use the same method, and while I'll agree that it is great for us as individuals, the problem still exits for everyone, including the airline.  Look up studies of "how much it costs per minute to have a plane parked at a gate while de-planing and boarding" and you'll see why this is an issue that needs a solution beyond "oh just wait for everyone to get on then the line is short!""

"Dammit, I had this idea a few years ago.  Of course, I'm sure others had it before me and I had neither the drive, knowledge, resources, nor time to pursue it, but I'm very, very happy to see someone did.  I love the direction this pushes things in, and I'm very happy to read their stance/philosophy on transparency.  Great work, hope to see it flourish as it deserves."

"I think GD can be aesthetic in the right applications, or with some tweaks. I agree with you, however, on the point of "I'd like the benefits of generative design to be largely invisible, used for internal support structures rather than highlighted as aesthetic elements". I think of it like I think of any other DFM- or 'engineering'-driven element. Ribs in a molded element are typically ugly, or at least, resolving them aesthetically presents a significant challenge. Hiding them behind a disparate aesthetic surface may be lazy, but it looks good. Leaving them exposed and making zero attempt to improve them aesthetically is even more lazy, and looks awful. However, if the subject of the design effort relies on highly-optimized engineering in order to be successful (i.e. aerospace industry), having visible structural elements may be a consequence of the optimization. In this case, spending the time to resolve the structure aesthetically can result in some surprisingly attractive aesthetic results.To be clear, that effort was not made on the VW example above.  Applying a smoothing function and painting it orange does not an attractive GD element make. Examples of well-resolved GD that come to mind are the Adidas Futurecraft 4D (allowing a GD element to drive a cohesive aesthetic, good hierarchy), Starck A.I. chair for Kartell (well-resolved GD elements without going overboard), and the ceiling of the University of Iowa's Voxman School of Music concert hall (blending multiple functionalities and design requirements while also accomplishing an impressive aesthetic -in a ceiling- is impressive to me, at least).In summary, I agree with you for the most part, but I'd like to see designers continue to make the significant effort required to push the aesthetic envelope of GD and drive new and interesting designs without feeling like these things always need to be completely hidden."

"I know what a fire grenade is, but I'd be willing to wager that the percentage of the general population that knows about them is a fraction of a percentage. And I've never seen a fire grenade that has instructions for use. No, I don't think that guests are commonly putting out fires in other people's homes, but fire extinguishers are used in more places than just homes, and its not like people are given classes on how to use them. Hence the labeling including instructions.I hope none of my comments have sounded argumentative, it's difficult to communicate tone with text, but I'm not up in arms over here, just trying to clarify my points and defend Emily's (in my opinion) logical questions.To summarize my point, I think saying "well these little glass orb fire grenades were invented back in the 1800s and they work pretty if you know how to use them" isn't a good reason to not critique and try to improve the design of the vase Samsung has presented."

"1. "safer than a fire for 1000, Alex." fair, but something that is frangible under intense heat but doesn't require cleaning thousands of tiny sharp shards would be preferable to shattering a glass vessel, objectively.2. "So SAMSUNG should be written on it?" ...I'm pretty sure Emily was suggesting that the device should have some type of signage indicating that it's a fire extinguisher and directions for use, not sure what part of what she typed made you think she was concerned about the vase having Samsung branding.3. "What is the likelihood a visitor puts out a fire over the owner?" I think the point is, everyone knows how to use a contemporary fire extinguisher, or at least everyone understands the purpose.  What are the consequences of introducing a new fire extinguisher whose use isn't broadly understood / clearly communicated / somewhat ambiguous?4. "Has been done for centuries..." Could you provide some examples of discreet fire extinguishers whose use case is still clear that have been around for centuries?  I'm no fire extinguisher expert, but I can't think of any examples off of the top of my head...5. "Having a fire extinguisher out and on display makes it more accessible, therefore more effective..." here I agree with you completely, but I think the crux of the issue is communicating to everyone that "this is a fire extinguisher, here's how you use it" without ruining the aesthetics of the object."

"When did you visit?  I travel to Hamburg once a year and I finally got to visit the Wunderland this past April.  Such a delightful place."