Loading video...

Video Failed to Load

There was a problem loading this video. This could be due to a temporary network issue or the video might be unavailable.

all of this is code Sonnet 5.5 max made this 39s video in 17 hours w/ HyperFrames , prompt below concept: depth is the hierarchy. On a screen you look into, focus picks what matters and going deeper shows more. • One object: a black glass instrument with three... windows, all showing the same tide reading, 3.67 m. • Three depths, three levels: the shallowest window shows only the number, the middle one adds range, high water and rate, the deepest adds a trend and twelve readings. • The camera pulls focus from window to window, so focus, not layout, decides what you read. It ends on the engraved line "Depth is the hierarchy". • The design idea: information hierarchy carried by optical depth (glass, refraction, real depth of field) instead of size, weight and position on a flat screen. The starting point was Ferrari Luce's layered display. • Built as one HyperFrames page: three.js glass and metal, live HTML text drawn into the 3D scene through HTML-in-Canvas, thin-lens depth of field, every frame deterministic.show more

Miguel Ángel

3,453 subscribers

28,204 views • 1 day ago •via X (Twitter)

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

25 Comments

Miguel Ángel1 day ago

prompt: "make the hardest hyperframes video, showcase a new design innovation"

Somrat Dutta1 day ago

@HyperFrames_ premium

unfazed.17 hours ago

@HyperFrames_ isn't 17 hours too much ???

Harshit Khemani1 day ago

@arushi_ressl @HyperFrames_ no way, whattt

Bruce Martin14 hours ago

@HyperFrames_ incredible

Rodrigo Vanegas13 hours ago

@HyperFrames_ Es impresionante ver hasta dónde puede llegar el código aplicado al video. Pero 17 h también dejan una reflexión: que algo pueda hacerse de forma técnicamente compleja no significa que sea la más eficiente. Parte del avance está en saber elegir la herramienta según el objetivo.

Ayaan Khan1 day ago

@HyperFrames_ deterministic frames sound useful for fixing one section without rerendering everything. can you change a focus pull independently, or does it shift the rest of the timeline too?

Erik 🇨🇿 🇸🇰14 hours ago

@HyperFrames_ 17 hours ?

Daniel White10 hours ago

@HyperFrames_ kind of crazy this is

Yuval Avidani (יובל אבידני)22 hours ago

@HyperFrames_ But how did it generate the glass and all? This is code only?

Miguel Ángel22 hours ago

@HyperFrames_ html-in-canvas!

Yuval Avidani (יובל אבידני)22 hours ago

@HyperFrames_ This is really unbelievable! Will try it out soon 👏👏👏

Akshara Hegde - oss/acc22 hours ago

@HyperFrames_ Love it

Prince does AI1 day ago

@HyperFrames_ Holy crap. Amazing

John Kovacs22 hours ago

@HyperFrames_ 39s after 17h on sonnet max stuck with me. focus picking the window instead of bigger type is the hierarchy move

Hussain Poonawala15 hours ago

@HyperFrames_ How many tokens did this use?

Miguel Ángel11 hours ago

@HyperFrames_ 2 billion

Gustavo Llermaly1 day ago

@HyperFrames_ the level of detail is amazing

🇺🇦 Maks Surguy22 hours ago

@HyperFrames_ You should try Rive next

Miguel Ángel22 hours ago

@HyperFrames_ I'm one of the co-creators of HyperFrames 🏃

Fūrin1 day ago

@HyperFrames_ hey Miguel since gemini 4 already announced can u share some of its result on motion graphics

iammakayi20 hours ago

@HyperFrames_ 17 hours? What’s the point lol

Victor | Applied AI & Automation10 hours ago

@HyperFrames_ 17hrs is wild though

Ray Velez1 day ago

@HyperFrames_ hyperframes is getting hollywood grade real fast 👀

Arushi Gandhi1 day ago

@HyperFrames_ 👀

Related Videos

The robot’s “eyes” just received a big upgrade. LingBot-Depth 2.0, a depth-completion model with half the depth error just dropped. 12/16 benchmarks topped. Glass, mirrors, and transparent objects are so easy for us humans, but so hard for robots, because they do not behave like ordinary surfaces in a camera pipeline. A robot that misunderstands a balcony window or a table edge, will have a completely false planning inside a false world. Huge implecation. LingBot-Depth 2.0 takes an RGB image plus a broken depth map from a sensor and then outputs a cleaner depth map and a usable 3D point cloud. Numbers on LingBot-Depth 2.0 - Excels on glass, mirrors & transparent objects — where traditional depth cameras fail - Training data: 3M → 150M (50x scale-up) - 12 out of 16 first-place rankings on depth completion benchmarks - RMSE cut in half: 0.132 → 0.062 on the hardest indoor scenes LingBot-Vision trained on boundaries, because object edges carry the geometry robots need. No human boundary labels are used, which makes this approach easier to scale. The open-sourced LingBot-Vision is the general vision backbone, and LingBot-Depth 2.0 is the depth model built on it.

The robot’s “eyes” just received a big upgrade. LingBot-Depth 2.0, a depth-completion model with half the depth error just dropped. 12/16 benchmarks topped. Glass, mirrors, and transparent objects are so easy for us humans, but so hard for robots, because they do not behave like ordinary surfaces in a camera pipeline. A robot that misunderstands a balcony window or a table edge, will have a completely false planning inside a false world. Huge implecation. LingBot-Depth 2.0 takes an RGB image plus a broken depth map from a sensor and then outputs a cleaner depth map and a usable 3D point cloud. Numbers on LingBot-Depth 2.0 - Excels on glass, mirrors & transparent objects — where traditional depth cameras fail - Training data: 3M → 150M (50x scale-up) - 12 out of 16 first-place rankings on depth completion benchmarks - RMSE cut in half: 0.132 → 0.062 on the hardest indoor scenes LingBot-Vision trained on boundaries, because object edges carry the geometry robots need. No human boundary labels are used, which makes this approach easier to scale. The open-sourced LingBot-Vision is the general vision backbone, and LingBot-Depth 2.0 is the depth model built on it.

Rohan Paul

25,312 views • 2 months ago

With all due respect to my friend Doomer, the reason they didn’t use selective focus on the Rocky stair shot is because they couldn’t. The tech wasn’t there yet. Rocky was the first film the use a Steadicam. This was groundbreaking tech and changed cinematic language forever. That's the reason the stair scene is so iconic--because audiences had never seen anything like it before. If we were doing that shot today, we’d have a focus puller (called a 1st AC in the USA) manually focusing the lens on a wireless follow focus. Because there’s no other way to pull focus with a fast moving steadi cam following a fast moving subject. With a shallow depth of field Rocky would have been running in and out of focus. But back then they had no choice. So they used the largest depth of field they could get away with so that Rocky stayed in focus the entire time. If they’d had the tech to do selective focus they 100% would have used it--because cinema is all about selective focus. Steadicam inventor Garret Brown actually shot a test with his GF running on the same stairs used in Rocky (see video). And again, he was forced to use a deep depth of field because there was no way to accurately focus the camera while he was moving.

With all due respect to my friend Doomer, the reason they didn’t use selective focus on the Rocky stair shot is because they couldn’t. The tech wasn’t there yet. Rocky was the first film the use a Steadicam. This was groundbreaking tech and changed cinematic language forever. That's the reason the stair scene is so iconic--because audiences had never seen anything like it before. If we were doing that shot today, we’d have a focus puller (called a 1st AC in the USA) manually focusing the lens on a wireless follow focus. Because there’s no other way to pull focus with a fast moving steadi cam following a fast moving subject. With a shallow depth of field Rocky would have been running in and out of focus. But back then they had no choice. So they used the largest depth of field they could get away with so that Rocky stayed in focus the entire time. If they’d had the tech to do selective focus they 100% would have used it--because cinema is all about selective focus. Steadicam inventor Garret Brown actually shot a test with his GF running on the same stairs used in Rocky (see video). And again, he was forced to use a deep depth of field because there was no way to accurately focus the camera while he was moving.

Rambo Van Halen

20,578 views • 10 months ago

The idea was to basically use minimum blending and use all 4 color channels on the screen to write 4 depths: Nearest frontsurface, nearest backsurface, furthest frontsurface and furthest backsurface. (you can do min and max by inverting the numbers) Rendering the liquid with ZTest Off gives a pretty good approximation of the surfaces the liquid has that are within the field of view. Combining this with screen space ray marching of the scene depth and one can get a pretty decent emulation of how a multibounce ray traced fluid would have looked like, while being much faster. Without the 4 depths it would have been impossible to properly show the optical depth of absorption of light of the entire mass of fluid with air in-between.

The idea was to basically use minimum blending and use all 4 color channels on the screen to write 4 depths: Nearest frontsurface, nearest backsurface, furthest frontsurface and furthest backsurface. (you can do min and max by inverting the numbers) Rendering the liquid with ZTest Off gives a pretty good approximation of the surfaces the liquid has that are within the field of view. Combining this with screen space ray marching of the scene depth and one can get a pretty decent emulation of how a multibounce ray traced fluid would have looked like, while being much faster. Without the 4 depths it would have been impossible to properly show the optical depth of absorption of light of the entire mass of fluid with air in-between.

Mykhailo Moroz

11,358 views • 8 days ago

context engineering vs graph engineering. every few months the list gets a new word and everyone treats it as a replacement for the last one. these two are not on the same list. one decides what the model sees this turn, the other decides what exists at all. the cleanest way to tell them apart is to ask what a single unit of work looks like. > context engineering is the window the window opens empty, every single time. you assemble what goes in it. the prompt, the docs, the history, the tool results. the assembling is the work. the window only grows. it never shrinks on its own, so eventually something gets dropped. usually from the middle. usually without telling you. then the turn ends and the window is thrown away. not archived, thrown away. the next turn opens empty again and you re-explain what you already explained. good context engineering is knowing what to leave out, not what to pack in. the unit of work is one window. > graph engineering is the structure the same material arrives from the same sources. instead of packing it into a window, you pull entities out of it, resolve the duplicates into one node, and write typed edges between them. nothing here is stored as text you hope to find again. it is stored as a thing with a name and its connections to other things. when the turn ends, the graph is still there. the next turn does not start from zero. it starts by querying what already exists, and the query walks edges instead of guessing at similarity. good graph engineering is deciding what counts as the same thing twice. the unit of work is one relationship. > they are not alternatives the graph is what refills the window. context engineering decides what fits. graph engineering decides what there is to choose from. remove the graph and every session starts blind. remove the context work and the best structure in the world arrives as an unreadable dump. that also tells you which one broke. the answer drifted from what you actually said, or forgot something from this same session. that is the window. the answer is coherent but invents a connection that does not exist, or cannot join two facts it has clearly seen. that is the structure. people debug the prompt because the prompt is the easiest thing to edit. it keeps taking the blame for failures that live a layer down. save this - then read the full breakdown below

context engineering vs graph engineering. every few months the list gets a new word and everyone treats it as a replacement for the last one. these two are not on the same list. one decides what the model sees this turn, the other decides what exists at all. the cleanest way to tell them apart is to ask what a single unit of work looks like. > context engineering is the window the window opens empty, every single time. you assemble what goes in it. the prompt, the docs, the history, the tool results. the assembling is the work. the window only grows. it never shrinks on its own, so eventually something gets dropped. usually from the middle. usually without telling you. then the turn ends and the window is thrown away. not archived, thrown away. the next turn opens empty again and you re-explain what you already explained. good context engineering is knowing what to leave out, not what to pack in. the unit of work is one window. > graph engineering is the structure the same material arrives from the same sources. instead of packing it into a window, you pull entities out of it, resolve the duplicates into one node, and write typed edges between them. nothing here is stored as text you hope to find again. it is stored as a thing with a name and its connections to other things. when the turn ends, the graph is still there. the next turn does not start from zero. it starts by querying what already exists, and the query walks edges instead of guessing at similarity. good graph engineering is deciding what counts as the same thing twice. the unit of work is one relationship. > they are not alternatives the graph is what refills the window. context engineering decides what fits. graph engineering decides what there is to choose from. remove the graph and every session starts blind. remove the context work and the best structure in the world arrives as an unreadable dump. that also tells you which one broke. the answer drifted from what you actually said, or forgot something from this same session. that is the window. the answer is coherent but invents a connection that does not exist, or cannot join two facts it has clearly seen. that is the structure. people debug the prompt because the prompt is the easiest thing to edit. it keeps taking the blame for failures that live a layer down. save this - then read the full breakdown below

Hanako

19,160 views • 2 months ago

A touch of magic and everything transforms From a modern kitchen to a cinematic crystal world. Made With Seedance 2.5 Prompt: A young East Asian woman in a dark maroon camisole matching detached sleeves and black cargo pants stands in a bright modern kitchen As she touches objects like a ceramic mug a metal kettle the wooden dining table shelves and the view outside the window each item shatters and transforms into dynamic crystal particles The room around her dissolves and shifts into a sleek minimalist industrial loft space featuring exposed concrete walls, large windows overlooking a bright coastal city harbor and professional video production equipment set up around her. Cinematic warm sunlight streams through the window highlighting floating dust and sparkling glass fragments in the air captured with smooth camera movements and a soft focus depth of field.

A touch of magic and everything transforms From a modern kitchen to a cinematic crystal world. Made With Seedance 2.5 Prompt: A young East Asian woman in a dark maroon camisole matching detached sleeves and black cargo pants stands in a bright modern kitchen As she touches objects like a ceramic mug a metal kettle the wooden dining table shelves and the view outside the window each item shatters and transforms into dynamic crystal particles The room around her dissolves and shifts into a sleek minimalist industrial loft space featuring exposed concrete walls, large windows overlooking a bright coastal city harbor and professional video production equipment set up around her. Cinematic warm sunlight streams through the window highlighting floating dust and sparkling glass fragments in the air captured with smooth camera movements and a soft focus depth of field.

Lavinia

21,414 views • 14 days ago

This will change how sports content gets made and delivered. The method is Gaussian splatting. It takes video from multiple camera positions and rebuilds the whole thing in three dimensions, viewable from any angle. Instead of polygons (the way games render), it builds the scene from millions of tiny glowing splats of color and depth. Arcturus runs it across time (4D), so a live game becomes a 3D scene, shown from field level, beside a player, or above the play.

This will change how sports content gets made and delivered. The method is Gaussian splatting. It takes video from multiple camera positions and rebuilds the whole thing in three dimensions, viewable from any angle. Instead of polygons (the way games render), it builds the scene from millions of tiny glowing splats of color and depth. Arcturus runs it across time (4D), so a live game becomes a 3D scene, shown from field level, beside a player, or above the play.

James Morrison Rubin

68,906 views • 29 days ago

Zhilin at GTC: Introducing Attention Residuals Learning selective memory, rather than mechanically accumulating everything, is the beauty of attention. Many of you have probably read Attention Is All You Need, the 2017 Transformer paper that brought “human-like” attention into the model’s field of view. From that point on, models no longer simply read everything in a mechanical way. Instead, they began to develop a sense of what matters more and what matters less across the text, choosing to retain the more important information. Recently, Kimi applied this idea of attention to the temporal dimension, then rotated it 90 degrees into the model’s depth dimension. This allows the model to have attention not only over time, but also throughout the process of information transmission across layers—giving it a more intelligent way to understand and process information.

Zhilin at GTC: Introducing Attention Residuals Learning selective memory, rather than mechanically accumulating everything, is the beauty of attention. Many of you have probably read Attention Is All You Need, the 2017 Transformer paper that brought “human-like” attention into the model’s field of view. From that point on, models no longer simply read everything in a mechanical way. Instead, they began to develop a sense of what matters more and what matters less across the text, choosing to retain the more important information. Recently, Kimi applied this idea of attention to the temporal dimension, then rotated it 90 degrees into the model’s depth dimension. This allows the model to have attention not only over time, but also throughout the process of information transmission across layers—giving it a more intelligent way to understand and process information.

Kimi.ai

117,333 views • 6 months ago

OPUS 5.5 IS THE ONLY MOTION DESIGNER YOU NEED this launch video cost $0 and is pure code everyone else on X claims the same shit, then sends you to their website or mcp this is completely free with 0 external tools steal the prompt and try it in your claude ↓ Ask me for: a one-word brand name for the wordmark (a verb works best), 9 to 12 high-res photos, a royalty-free song around 120 BPM with a drop and a quiet breakdown (Mixkit, free for commercial use), and a free stock clip of a plain wall with moving plant shadows (Pexels). An Apple-keynote launch film, 2D only, one continuous take. Every scene is made out of the previous one: nothing fades, blurs or cuts. Objects change shape instead: text rises out of a mask line, icons pop from zero on a spring, bars draw across, pages push, and a black shape floods the whole frame and contracts into the next scene. Warm off-white canvas, black UI, iOS 26 liquid glass over the photos. Archivo (wdth 125, weight 800) for the wordmark, Geist for UI. A cursor drives every change with real clicks, drags and long-presses. The camera zooms screen-studio style so each moment fills the square, and the cursor scales with it. Banned: crossfades, blur-ins, brightness "developing", 3D flips, particles, glows, holds longer than 1s, anything that looks like a template. 120 BPM, 54 beats, something happens on every beat. Open: the wordmark squeezes into its own period like an accordion, the dot grows into a black pill, a label rises inside it. Click: six iris blades close over the label and snap open onto a photo. The circle becomes a square, shrinks, the grid unfolds from behind it like a paper map (center, plus, corners), reflows into a bento, and a click zooms into one tile, landing exactly on the drop. Glass: a glass word pops in letter by letter, melts into a droplet that stretches into a glass toolbar. The adjust icon turns it into a slider. Dragging relights the photo from day to golden hour (two aligned shots), and the knob turns into a glass lens while held. It lifts into a glass orb, the next photo opens inside it as a circle, and the orb expands into a lock screen: glass clock digits, date, and a home bar that stretches into a glass music player. Stage: the lock screen pulls back into a phone (the bezel grows out of the screen edge). The Dynamic Island stretches like liquid, pinches off, flies over and grows into a Mac window that rolls up like a blind. Long-press the wallpaper, drag it onto a Safari tab, the page pushes in, drop it and it becomes the hero of a landing page. Scroll: the hero morphs into a framed print on a product card, with the mat and molding growing out of the photo's edge. Pick a frame color (it paints across) and a size, then the nav button flies down into "Order print". Order: one black shape keeps morphing: Ordered ✓ → Printing % → On its way (a van on a route) → Delivered ✓. Wall: the delivered circle floods the frame edge to edge, holds black for a beat, and contracts into the framed print hanging on the real wall footage. The same iris opens onto the print, closes again, the frame floods the screen and contracts into the pill → the dot → the letters spring back out, landing on the beat return. Last frame = first frame. 1. One HTML file, square 1440x1440. Every style is computed from time inside an async seek(t): no CSS transitions, no timers, no state between frames. 2. Springs are closed-form step responses. A value with many targets is the sum of one spring per change, so it stays a pure function of time. 3. Liquid glass: each glass element holds its own clone of the scene behind it, filtered with an SVG feImage displacement map (a rounded-rect distance field) through three feDisplacementMaps at slightly different scales for chromatic edges, plus a rim light. Glass letters: a canvas distance field per glyph gives the map, mask and highlights. 4. Goo: blur + alpha threshold, then composite the source atop it so the glass stays sharp inside. 5. Iris: 6 blades around a hexagonal aperture. Each blade is its two vertices, both edge extensions and the SHORT arc between them. 6. Wordmark squeeze: every letter moves toward the dot by the same factor and its drawn width follows (narrow the wdth axis, scale the rest), so the letters stay touching. 7. Footage: re-encode all-intra (ffmpeg -g 1), load it as a blob URL, await 'seeked' before drawing each frame. 8. Sound: a downloaded SFX for every event (Mixkit), never synthesized, each placed by its measured peak. The song starts on a downbeat: the zoom lands on the drop, the wall sits in the breakdown, the wordmark returns with the beat. Loudnorm to -14 LUFS. 9. Render with Playwright: 4 subframes per frame blended with ffmpeg tmix, 60fps. Check one frame per beat, then scan for single-frame pops (frame-difference spikes 3x their neighbours). backdrop-filter: url() misreads displacement maps in Chromium, so clone the scene instead. A flood must overscale past the corners and take about 0.3s, or half the screen changes in one frame. A child with visibility: visible shows through a hidden parent, so use inherit. Text that swaps inside a morphing shape needs its own mask. python http.server can't range-seek video, so use the blob URL. Ask me for the inputs, then show me the beat map and 4 stills (open, glass, stage, wall) before you write the full film.

zero

126,830 views • 5 days ago

Quant on Polymarket turned $313 into $296,000 in one month - and it never predicted Bitcoin's direction once. 65% win rate on 15-minute Up/Down markets. The edge wasn't the forecast. It was the order book. Wallet proof: It's the one thing retail never sees and bots live on: full bid/ask depth on any BTC/ETH/SOL Up/Down market, at any second in its history, down to 300ms - Binance depth beside it, replayable tick-by-tick on real fills. I've been pulling it from PolyHistorical Here's why it matters. Bloomberg ran the numbers: the top 1% of wallets, mostly bots, took 80%+ of all profits. Retail lost $131M net. Same predictions - better data. What that data shows: pull the depth on a BTC 5-minute market and watch the last minute. Resting bids at T-60 sit around $1,210. At T-10, $240. At T-3, $90. 95% of the liquidity you think you can hit vanishes before resolution. A $500 buy at T-30 eats ~4.2¢ of slippage - half the edge, gone. One tested pattern: when depth leans 65/35 while price sits flat, it reverts within 60s 73% of the time. Median lag from depth to price: 11 seconds. 312 signals in 30 days. The depth wasn't lagging. It was waiting. That's the whole game here - not calling the candle, but seeing depth shift before price does. This wallet did exactly that. Every level, every 300ms, 13,000+ resolved markets, free to replay.

Quant on Polymarket turned $313 into $296,000 in one month - and it never predicted Bitcoin's direction once. 65% win rate on 15-minute Up/Down markets. The edge wasn't the forecast. It was the order book. Wallet proof: It's the one thing retail never sees and bots live on: full bid/ask depth on any BTC/ETH/SOL Up/Down market, at any second in its history, down to 300ms - Binance depth beside it, replayable tick-by-tick on real fills. I've been pulling it from PolyHistorical Here's why it matters. Bloomberg ran the numbers: the top 1% of wallets, mostly bots, took 80%+ of all profits. Retail lost $131M net. Same predictions - better data. What that data shows: pull the depth on a BTC 5-minute market and watch the last minute. Resting bids at T-60 sit around $1,210. At T-10, $240. At T-3, $90. 95% of the liquidity you think you can hit vanishes before resolution. A $500 buy at T-30 eats ~4.2¢ of slippage - half the edge, gone. One tested pattern: when depth leans 65/35 while price sits flat, it reverts within 60s 73% of the time. Median lag from depth to price: 11 seconds. 312 signals in 30 days. The depth wasn't lagging. It was waiting. That's the whole game here - not calling the candle, but seeing depth shift before price does. This wallet did exactly that. Every level, every 300ms, 13,000+ resolved markets, free to replay.

cvxv666

23,228 views • 3 months ago

Inspired by Ed Husain powerful piece on The Spectator, In Defence of Dubai. This nation was never built overnight. It is not merely glass towers and economics, but a civilization layered with memory, faith, lineage, and identity. A country that modernized without surrendering its roots. Historically grounded, religiously rich, and culturally confident. This is the depth too many still fail to see. Link to the article:

Inspired by Ed Husain powerful piece on The Spectator, In Defence of Dubai. This nation was never built overnight. It is not merely glass towers and economics, but a civilization layered with memory, faith, lineage, and identity. A country that modernized without surrendering its roots. Historically grounded, religiously rich, and culturally confident. This is the depth too many still fail to see. Link to the article:

Rauda Altenaiji

17,142 views • 5 months ago

Every pane of glass around you. 🪟 Every window. Every phone screen. Every car windscreen. Every skyscraper.🇬🇧 All made the same way. All using the same process. Invented in a kitchen sink in Lancashire. His name was Sir Alastair Pilkington. He wasn't even related to the glass company. He just happened to share the name and married into the family. In 1952 he was doing the washing up at home. He watched the grease float on the water. Perfectly flat. Undisturbed. And thought: what if molten glass could do that? Before this moment, flat glass had been made the same way for three hundred years. 😰 You melted sand. You poured it into sheets. Then you ground it. And polished it. By hand. For hours. A third of every sheet was wasted in the process. The work was brutal. The results were inconsistent. Nobody questioned it. That was just how glass was made. Pilkington went to his bosses at Pilkington Brothers in St Helens with his idea. They backed him. It took seven years. It cost £7 million. An enormous sum in the 1950s. There were years where nothing worked. The company nearly went bankrupt. His idea: pour molten glass at 1,100°C onto a bath of molten tin. Glass is less dense than tin. It floats. It spreads. Both surfaces fire-polished perfectly flat by the heat. No grinding. No polishing. No waste. 🔥 In January 1959, it worked. The float glass process was licensed to manufacturers across the world. Over 40 companies. Over 30 countries. Today it accounts for over 90% of all flat glass production on Earth. Every window you have ever looked through in your entire life was almost certainly made using this single British process. Sir Alastair Pilkington was knighted in 1970. Elected Fellow of the Royal Society in 1969. Made a life peer in 1995. Baron Pilkington of St Helens. He died the same year. Before he could take his seat in the House of Lords. A British man with an idea who changed every building on Earth. 🇬🇧 Be part of us - Be proud of us. 🙏🇬🇧

Every pane of glass around you. 🪟 Every window. Every phone screen. Every car windscreen. Every skyscraper.🇬🇧 All made the same way. All using the same process. Invented in a kitchen sink in Lancashire. His name was Sir Alastair Pilkington. He wasn't even related to the glass company. He just happened to share the name and married into the family. In 1952 he was doing the washing up at home. He watched the grease float on the water. Perfectly flat. Undisturbed. And thought: what if molten glass could do that? Before this moment, flat glass had been made the same way for three hundred years. 😰 You melted sand. You poured it into sheets. Then you ground it. And polished it. By hand. For hours. A third of every sheet was wasted in the process. The work was brutal. The results were inconsistent. Nobody questioned it. That was just how glass was made. Pilkington went to his bosses at Pilkington Brothers in St Helens with his idea. They backed him. It took seven years. It cost £7 million. An enormous sum in the 1950s. There were years where nothing worked. The company nearly went bankrupt. His idea: pour molten glass at 1,100°C onto a bath of molten tin. Glass is less dense than tin. It floats. It spreads. Both surfaces fire-polished perfectly flat by the heat. No grinding. No polishing. No waste. 🔥 In January 1959, it worked. The float glass process was licensed to manufacturers across the world. Over 40 companies. Over 30 countries. Today it accounts for over 90% of all flat glass production on Earth. Every window you have ever looked through in your entire life was almost certainly made using this single British process. Sir Alastair Pilkington was knighted in 1970. Elected Fellow of the Royal Society in 1969. Made a life peer in 1995. Baron Pilkington of St Helens. He died the same year. Before he could take his seat in the House of Lords. A British man with an idea who changed every building on Earth. 🇬🇧 Be part of us - Be proud of us. 🙏🇬🇧

Proudofus.uk

130,952 views • 6 months ago

Let’s see what happened to all these materials after I dipped them into the magical glass-forming liquid. As you can see, the entire surface of the liquid has completely solidified. But I was still able to push the side of the container in, which means that underneath, it is still liquid. So this is not one solid block of glass. Let’s look at them one by one. First, I’m taking out the pencil. Well, no glass layer formed on this one. What you can see on it is simply the dried upper crust of the liquid. To be honest, I expected this, because this isn’t really bare wood—it’s more like wood with a plastic coating. Next is the geopolymer. The result is exactly the same. This one surprised me, because this was actually the material I was most confident would develop a deposit. But apparently not. Next comes the granite. And by now, it’s pretty easy to see that the result is the same again: nothing deposited on it. The next object is the spoon. I had absolutely no expectations for this one, and absolutely nothing is exactly what happened. There’s only the dried upper crust stuck to it, and the rest will probably just run off. But what about the egg?! A few days ago, it looked as though the egg was going to be the champion, with a massive layer of glass apparently forming on it. Well, I have some bad news: not at all. And why? I have absolutely no idea. And finally, just quickly at the end… The piece of limestone suffered exactly the same fate, and so did the peach. So, in reality, the experiment was a spectacular failure. None of these objects developed a glass layer. And in my opinion, this is exactly why it’s not worth publishing the recipe yet. Because, as you can clearly see, this time it simply didn’t work—even though, in theory, I did exactly the same thing as before. So, I wish myself happy experimenting. Once again, I’ve been given a new puzzle that I have to solve. … Meanwhile, in the container right next to it, this happened. And the recipe is exactly the same! Wow! 🤯

Let’s see what happened to all these materials after I dipped them into the magical glass-forming liquid. As you can see, the entire surface of the liquid has completely solidified. But I was still able to push the side of the container in, which means that underneath, it is still liquid. So this is not one solid block of glass. Let’s look at them one by one. First, I’m taking out the pencil. Well, no glass layer formed on this one. What you can see on it is simply the dried upper crust of the liquid. To be honest, I expected this, because this isn’t really bare wood—it’s more like wood with a plastic coating. Next is the geopolymer. The result is exactly the same. This one surprised me, because this was actually the material I was most confident would develop a deposit. But apparently not. Next comes the granite. And by now, it’s pretty easy to see that the result is the same again: nothing deposited on it. The next object is the spoon. I had absolutely no expectations for this one, and absolutely nothing is exactly what happened. There’s only the dried upper crust stuck to it, and the rest will probably just run off. But what about the egg?! A few days ago, it looked as though the egg was going to be the champion, with a massive layer of glass apparently forming on it. Well, I have some bad news: not at all. And why? I have absolutely no idea. And finally, just quickly at the end… The piece of limestone suffered exactly the same fate, and so did the peach. So, in reality, the experiment was a spectacular failure. None of these objects developed a glass layer. And in my opinion, this is exactly why it’s not worth publishing the recipe yet. Because, as you can clearly see, this time it simply didn’t work—even though, in theory, I did exactly the same thing as before. So, I wish myself happy experimenting. Once again, I’ve been given a new puzzle that I have to solve. … Meanwhile, in the container right next to it, this happened. And the recipe is exactly the same! Wow! 🤯

Marcell Fóti 🪨

21,749 views • 1 month ago

In an era long before digital effects, Hollywood relied on incredible artistry to create on-screen illusions. One breathtaking example is in Charlie Chaplin’s Modern Times (1936), where a heart-stopping scene—appearing to show Chaplin on the edge of a towering building—was actually filmed on a studio floor using a glass matte painting. Artists hand-painted cityscapes on sheets of glass to give the illusion of depth, danger, and height. This analog trickery required precision and perspective — one mistake could ruin the shot. Yet it worked flawlessly, creating a visual illusion so strong, even modern viewers are left stunned. 🎥 Via: A Bucket of Water and a Glass Matte / YouTube

In an era long before digital effects, Hollywood relied on incredible artistry to create on-screen illusions. One breathtaking example is in Charlie Chaplin’s Modern Times (1936), where a heart-stopping scene—appearing to show Chaplin on the edge of a towering building—was actually filmed on a studio floor using a glass matte painting. Artists hand-painted cityscapes on sheets of glass to give the illusion of depth, danger, and height. This analog trickery required precision and perspective — one mistake could ruin the shot. Yet it worked flawlessly, creating a visual illusion so strong, even modern viewers are left stunned. 🎥 Via: A Bucket of Water and a Glass Matte / YouTube

History Photographed

112,074 views • 1 year ago

Everyone keeps talking about how good Kimi K3 is. So I gave it one of my favorite frontend tests: one prompt + one reference image. The task: rebuild a 3D globe dashboard. 🌎 The result was almost too good. It did not just build a working page. The texture, lighting, spacing, depth, glass panels, and overall layout were all remarkably close to the reference. Some parts felt nearly pixel-perfect. My honest first impression: for this kind of frontend work, Kimi K3 might be slightly better than Fable 5. All at Sonnet prices.

Everyone keeps talking about how good Kimi K3 is. So I gave it one of my favorite frontend tests: one prompt + one reference image. The task: rebuild a 3D globe dashboard. 🌎 The result was almost too good. It did not just build a working page. The texture, lighting, spacing, depth, glass panels, and overall layout were all remarkably close to the reference. Some parts felt nearly pixel-perfect. My honest first impression: for this kind of frontend work, Kimi K3 might be slightly better than Fable 5. All at Sonnet prices.

Kai

405,113 views • 2 months ago

Fable 5 and GPT-5.6 built the same scroll-animated website from 1 skill in 32 minutes and only 1 of them made it feel like a film. Same prompt: boutique Japan travel brand, origami style. A subway pulls in, a paper house unfolds into a hotel, a bird takes flight as you scroll. Doing this by hand is brutal multiple videos, matched starting frames, frames ripped out 1 by 1 and synced to scroll position. The skill does all of it: Generate 1 anchor image and approve it every scene inherits the style Turn it into video through the Higgs Field MCP (Seedance), straight from the terminal FFmpeg pulls every frame Each frame maps to scroll position, so your scrollbar becomes the playhead Setup is just connecting the MCP and loading the skill works in Claude Code and Codex. It interviews you first about scenes, budget and mobile, then shows the anchor image before burning a single credit on video. Budget reality: 6 scenes runs ~800 credits and is overkill, 4 scenes is the sweet spot, crop-safe mobile is the cheap path. The verdict came down to transitions. GPT-5.6 Soul built strong scenes with incredible detail inside each one then hard cuts between scene 1 and 2, and again between 2 and 3. Fable 5 stitched them together: wires push out of the top of frame while the next scene blurs in behind, gains depth and locks into place. Same skill, same prompts, 10 generations each. Credit to Peter Wang for the original Scroll World skill open source, now forked with budget tiers and mobile fixes. Soul built 4 scenes. Fable built 1 film.

Spike 1%

45,683 views • 2 months ago

FOCUS ON YOU is officially out now, and it is everything we could have hoped for and more! JL’s vocal tone fits the nostalgic, youth-filled vibe of the webtoon so effortlessly. The track encapsulates the raw emotion of Baek Do-hwa’s high school days, the gentle buildup, the realization of first love, and that feeling of stepping into a new season with someone special. JL delivered such a polished, emotive performance that elevated the whole mood of the webtoon storyline. You can genuinely feel the care and depth in every line he sings. Huge congratulations to JL on this amazing OST release! Stream FOCUS ON YOU today across all major music platforms: ⬇️ Melon Genie Bugs FLO Spotify YT Music Apple Music FOCUS ON YOU JL #OSTPrinceJL #아홉 #아홉_제이엘 #제이엘 #AHOF_JL #JLGaspar

FOCUS ON YOU is officially out now, and it is everything we could have hoped for and more! JL’s vocal tone fits the nostalgic, youth-filled vibe of the webtoon so effortlessly. The track encapsulates the raw emotion of Baek Do-hwa’s high school days, the gentle buildup, the realization of first love, and that feeling of stepping into a new season with someone special. JL delivered such a polished, emotive performance that elevated the whole mood of the webtoon storyline. You can genuinely feel the care and depth in every line he sings. Huge congratulations to JL on this amazing OST release! Stream FOCUS ON YOU today across all major music platforms: ⬇️ Melon Genie Bugs FLO Spotify YT Music Apple Music FOCUS ON YOU JL #OSTPrinceJL #아홉 #아홉_제이엘 #제이엘 #AHOF_JL #JLGaspar

AHOF JL UNIVERSE

32,194 views • 11 days ago

ANTHROPIC LEAKED A FILE WHERE 4 DEPARTMENTS ASSEMBLE IN 60 MINUTES AND BUILD A BUSINESS THAT MAKES $100K A MONTH the same work done by people is $30,000 a month - here it's 4 departments and $2.65 a day. the first 12 minutes you write 3 lines all 4 departments will read all week: who buys, what we sell, at what price. development is the largest line on the bill - $1.30, three cheap lanes in parallel and one expensive verdict at the end. marketing is high volume with a low stake per item - so it generates 3 variants and you pick one. one variant is a guess, three variants are a choice, and they cost the same. research runs the other way: the cheap model filters hundreds of sources, the expensive one reads only what survived. paying the top rate for a page you'll discard anyway is the commonest overspend there is. and there's exactly one department where saving on the model makes no sense - unit economics: one wrong number costs you a year. route by the cost of being wrong, not the price per token - Opus on the content queue is 5x overpaid, Haiku on the economics is a year of rework. finance is the only department that writes back into the root - next week marketing runs on rules the economics wrote. at minute 60 you have a page, a payment link, a week of content and an economics model - revenue isn't on that list. save this and paste it into Claude Code - the hour builds the company, the market decides the number ↓

ANTHROPIC LEAKED A FILE WHERE 4 DEPARTMENTS ASSEMBLE IN 60 MINUTES AND BUILD A BUSINESS THAT MAKES $100K A MONTH the same work done by people is $30,000 a month - here it's 4 departments and $2.65 a day. the first 12 minutes you write 3 lines all 4 departments will read all week: who buys, what we sell, at what price. development is the largest line on the bill - $1.30, three cheap lanes in parallel and one expensive verdict at the end. marketing is high volume with a low stake per item - so it generates 3 variants and you pick one. one variant is a guess, three variants are a choice, and they cost the same. research runs the other way: the cheap model filters hundreds of sources, the expensive one reads only what survived. paying the top rate for a page you'll discard anyway is the commonest overspend there is. and there's exactly one department where saving on the model makes no sense - unit economics: one wrong number costs you a year. route by the cost of being wrong, not the price per token - Opus on the content queue is 5x overpaid, Haiku on the economics is a year of rework. finance is the only department that writes back into the root - next week marketing runs on rules the economics wrote. at minute 60 you have a page, a payment link, a week of content and an economics model - revenue isn't on that list. save this and paste it into Claude Code - the hour builds the company, the market decides the number ↓

Sprytix

19,325 views • 1 month ago

If you had an NES in the 80s, you played this! Punch Out (Nintendo, 1987) is one of only 2 NES games that sold over 2 million units by 1988 - the other one being The Legend of Zelda - making it one of Nintendo's best selling games of all time. You're taking on the role of Little Mac, a 17-year-old boxer trying his luck against opponents like Glass Joe, Bald Bull, and King Hippo, plus - of course - the legendary Mike Tyson in the final fight. Mario being the referee was a cute little crossover-cameo. Probably the best boxing game ever made? What made it so remarkable was its perfect balance of simplicity and depth: With just a few basic controls - left, right, punch, and dodge was all you could do - the key was to have great reflexes and memorize the patterns of the opponent.

If you had an NES in the 80s, you played this! Punch Out (Nintendo, 1987) is one of only 2 NES games that sold over 2 million units by 1988 - the other one being The Legend of Zelda - making it one of Nintendo's best selling games of all time. You're taking on the role of Little Mac, a 17-year-old boxer trying his luck against opponents like Glass Joe, Bald Bull, and King Hippo, plus - of course - the legendary Mike Tyson in the final fight. Mario being the referee was a cute little crossover-cameo. Probably the best boxing game ever made? What made it so remarkable was its perfect balance of simplicity and depth: With just a few basic controls - left, right, punch, and dodge was all you could do - the key was to have great reflexes and memorize the patterns of the opponent.

exQUIZitely 🕹️

30,676 views • 5 months ago

Astra can create beautiful three.js UIs entirely in code. You don't need an assets library or MCP to create detailed 3D models. These are all code and are easy to customize for your agent. Give Astra a video, URL, or code reference, then ask it to keep comparing the result against the reference and fixing mistakes. Liquid Glass, shaders, motion design, procedural three.js models, and full environments. All from a few prompts. Some prompts I used: "Recreate this in a single HTML file with three.js. Keep comparing it against the reference and fix any differences." "Add Liquid Glass buttons. On hover, animate the lighting around the borders and make the background gradients move slightly with the pointer. Add subtle particles." "Improve the lighting, edges, and modeling. Give the keys more depth and verify the result against the real MacBook." Too many projects I could open-source. Let me know which one should I release.

Astra can create beautiful three.js UIs entirely in code. You don't need an assets library or MCP to create detailed 3D models. These are all code and are easy to customize for your agent. Give Astra a video, URL, or code reference, then ask it to keep comparing the result against the reference and fixing mistakes. Liquid Glass, shaders, motion design, procedural three.js models, and full environments. All from a few prompts. Some prompts I used: "Recreate this in a single HTML file with three.js. Keep comparing it against the reference and fix any differences." "Add Liquid Glass buttons. On hover, animate the lighting around the borders and make the background gradients move slightly with the pointer. Add subtle particles." "Improve the lighting, edges, and modeling. Give the keys more depth and verify the result against the real MacBook." Too many projects I could open-source. Let me know which one should I release.

Meng To

105,156 views • 25 days ago