Disparu il y a plus d'un siècle, la lettre Ꝃ "k barré", prononcé ker, continue pourtant de fasciner et se bat pour exister, même hors de Bretagne. L’article Le Ꝃ barré : la lettre interdite de Bretagne est apparu en premier sur Graphéine - Agence de

Key Takeaways Meta and Yandex have been found guilty of secretly listening to localhost ports and using them to transfer sensitive data from Android devices. The corporations use Meta Pixel and Yandex Metrica scripts to transfer cookies from browsers to local apps. Using incognito mode or a VPN can’t fully protect users against it. A Meta spokesperson has called this a ‘miscommunication,’ which seems to be an attempt to underplay the situation. Denmark’s Ministry of Digitalization has recently announced that it will leave the Microsoft ecosystem in favor of Linux and other open-source software. Minister Caroline Stage Olsen revealed this in an interview with Politiken, the country’s leading newspaper. According to Olsen, the Ministry plans to switch half of its employees to Linux and LibreOffice by summer, and the rest by fall. The announcement comes after Denmark’s largest cities – Copenhagen and Aarhus – made similar moves earlier this month. Why the Danish Ministry of Digitalization Switched to Open-Source Software The three main reasons Denmark is moving away from Microsoft are costs, politics, and security. In the case of Aarhus, the city was able to slash its annual costs from 800K kroner to just 225K by replacing Microsoft with a German service provider.  The same is a pain point for Copenhagen, which saw its costs on Microsoft balloon from 313M kroner in 2018 to 538M kroner in 2023. It’s also part of a broader move to increase its digital sovereignty. In her LinkedIn post, Olsen further explained that the strategy is not about isolation or digital nationalism, adding that they should not turn their backs completely on global tech companies like Microsoft.  Instead, it’s about avoiding being too dependent on these companies, which could prevent them from acting freely. Then there’s politics. Since his reelection earlier this year, US President Donald Trump has repeatedly threatened to take over Greenland, an autonomous territory of Denmark.  In May, the Danish Foreign Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen summoned the US ambassador regarding news that US spy agencies have been told to focus on the territory. If the relationship between the two countries continues to erode, Trump can order Microsoft and other US tech companies to cut off Denmark from their services. After all, Microsoft and Facebook’s parent company Meta, have close ties to the US president after contributing $1M each for his inauguration in January. Denmark Isn’t Alone: Other EU Countries Are Making Similar Moves Denmark is only one of the growing number of European Union (EU) countries taking measures to become more digitally independent. Germany’s Federal Digital Minister Karsten Wildberger emphasized the need to be more independent of global tech companies during the re:publica internet conference in May. He added that IT companies in the EU have the opportunity to create tech that is based on the region’s values. Meanwhile, Bert Hubert, a technical advisor to the Dutch Electoral Council, wrote in February that ‘it is no longer safe to move our governments and societies to US clouds.’ He said that America is no longer a ‘reliable partner,’ making it risky to have the data of European governments and businesses at the mercy of US-based cloud providers. Earlier this month, the chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC), Karim Khan, experienced a disconnection from his Microsoft-based email account, sparking uproar across the region.  Speculation quickly arose that the incident was linked to sanctions previously imposed on the ICC by the Trump administration, an assertion Microsoft has denied. Earlier this month, the chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC), Karim Khan, disconnection from his Microsoft-based email account caused an uproar in the region. Some speculated that this was connected to sanctions imposed by Trump against the ICC, which Microsoft denied. Weaning the EU Away from US Tech is Possible, But Challenges Lie Ahead Change like this doesn’t happen overnight. Just finding, let alone developing, reliable alternatives to tools that have been part of daily workflows for decades, is a massive undertaking. It will also take time for users to adapt to these new tools, especially when transitioning to an entirely new ecosystem. In Aarhus, for example, municipal staff initially viewed the shift to open source as a step down from the familiarity and functionality of Microsoft products. Overall, these are only temporary hurdles. Momentum is building, with growing calls for digital independence from leaders like Ministers Olsen and Wildberger.  Initiatives such as the Digital Europe Programme, which seeks to reduce reliance on foreign systems and solutions, further accelerate this push. As a result, the EU’s transition could arrive sooner rather than later As technology continues to evolve—from the return of 'dumbphones' to faster and sleeker computers—seasoned tech journalist, Cedric Solidon, continues to dedicate himself to writing stories that inform, empower, and connect with readers across all levels of digital literacy. With 20 years of professional writing experience, this University of the Philippines Journalism graduate has carved out a niche as a trusted voice in tech media. Whether he's breaking down the latest advancements in cybersecurity or explaining how silicon-carbon batteries can extend your phone’s battery life, his writing remains rooted in clarity, curiosity, and utility. Long before he was writing for Techreport, HP, Citrix, SAP, Globe Telecom, CyberGhost VPN, and ExpressVPN, Cedric's love for technology began at home courtesy of a Nintendo Family Computer and a stack of tech magazines. Growing up, his days were often filled with sessions of Contra, Bomberman, Red Alert 2, and the criminally underrated Crusader: No Regret. But gaming wasn't his only gateway to tech.  He devoured every T3, PCMag, and PC Gamer issue he could get his hands on, often reading them cover to cover. It wasn’t long before he explored the early web in IRC chatrooms, online forums, and fledgling tech blogs, soaking in every byte of knowledge from the late '90s and early 2000s internet boom. That fascination with tech didn’t just stick. It evolved into a full-blown calling. After graduating with a degree in Journalism, he began his writing career at the dawn of Web 2.0. What started with small editorial roles and freelance gigs soon grew into a full-fledged career. He has since collaborated with global tech leaders, lending his voice to content that bridges technical expertise with everyday usability. He’s also written annual reports for Globe Telecom and consumer-friendly guides for VPN companies like CyberGhost and ExpressVPN, empowering readers to understand the importance of digital privacy. His versatility spans not just tech journalism but also technical writing. He once worked with a local tech company developing web and mobile apps for logistics firms, crafting documentation and communication materials that brought together user-friendliness with deep technical understanding. That experience sharpened his ability to break down dense, often jargon-heavy material into content that speaks clearly to both developers and decision-makers. At the heart of his work lies a simple belief: technology should feel empowering, not intimidating. Even if the likes of smartphones and AI are now commonplace, he understands that there's still a knowledge gap, especially when it comes to hardware or the real-world benefits of new tools. His writing hopes to help close that gap. Cedric’s writing style reflects that mission. It’s friendly without being fluffy and informative without being overwhelming. Whether writing for seasoned IT professionals or casual readers curious about the latest gadgets, he focuses on how a piece of technology can improve our lives, boost our productivity, or make our work more efficient. That human-first approach makes his content feel more like a conversation than a technical manual. As his writing career progresses, his passion for tech journalism remains as strong as ever. With the growing need for accessible, responsible tech communication, he sees his role not just as a journalist but as a guide who helps readers navigate a digital world that’s often as confusing as it is exciting. From reviewing the latest devices to unpacking global tech trends, Cedric isn’t just reporting on the future; he’s helping to write it. View all articles by Cedric Solidon Our editorial process The Tech Report editorial policy is centered on providing helpful, accurate content that offers real value to our readers. We only work with experienced writers who have specific knowledge in the topics they cover, including latest developments in technology, online privacy, cryptocurrencies, software, and more. Our editorial policy ensures that each topic is researched and curated by our in-house editors. We maintain rigorous journalistic standards, and every article is 100% written by real authors.

Google and OpenAI struck a cloud computing deal in May, according to a Reuters report. The deal surprised the industry as the two are seen as major AI rivals. Signs of friction between OpenAI and Microsoft may have also fueled the move. The partnership is a win-win.OpenAI gets more badly needed computing resources while Google profits from its $75B investment to boost its cloud computing capacity in 2025. In a surprise move, Google and OpenAI inked a deal that will see the AI rivals partnering to address OpenAI’s growing cloud computing needs. The story, reported by Reuters, cited anonymous sources saying that the deal had been discussed for months and finalized in May. Around this time, OpenAI has struggled to keep up with demand as its number of weekly active users and business users grew in Q1 2025. There’s also speculation of friction between OpenAI and its biggest investor Microsoft. Why the Deal Surprised the Tech Industry The rivalry between the two companies hardly needs an introduction. When OpenAI’s ChatGPT launched in November 2022, it posed a huge threat to Google that triggered a code red within the search giant and cloud services provider. Since then, Google has launched Bard (now known as Gemini) to compete with OpenAI head-on. However, it had to play catch up with OpenAI’s more advanced ChatGPT AI chatbot. This led to numerous issues with Bard, with critics referring to it as a half-baked product. A post on X in February 2023 showed the Bard AI chatbot erroneously stating that the James Webb Telescope took the first picture of an exoplanet. It was, in fact, the European Southern Observatory’s Very Large Telescope that did this in 2004. Google’s parent company Alphabet lost $100B off its market value within 24 hours as a result. Two years on, Gemini made significant strides in terms of accuracy, quoting sources, and depth of information, but is still prone to hallucinations from time to time. You can see examples of these posted on social media, like telling a user to make spicy spaghetti with gasoline or the AI thinking it’s still 2024.  And then there’s this gem: With the entire industry shifting towards more AI integrations, Google went ahead and integrated its AI suite into Search via AI Overviews. It then doubled down on this integration with AI Mode, an experimental feature that lets you perform AI-powered searches by typing in a question, uploading a photo, or using your voice. In the future, AI Mode from Google Search could be a viable competitor to ChatGPT—unless of course, Google decides to bin it along with many of its previous products. Given the scope of the investment, and Gemini’s significant improvement, we doubt AI + Search will be axed. It’s a Win-Win for Google and OpenAI—Not So Much for Microsoft? In the business world, money and the desire for expansion can break even the biggest rivalries. And the one between the two tech giants isn’t an exception. Partly, it could be attributed to OpenAI’s relationship with Microsoft. Although the Redmond, Washington-based company has invested billions in OpenAI and has the resources to meet the latter’s cloud computing needs, their partnership hasn’t always been rosy.  Some would say it began when OpenAI CEO Sam Altman was briefly ousted in November 2023, which put a strain on the ‘best bromance in tech’ between him and Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella. Then last year, Microsoft added OpenAI to its list of competitors in the AI space before eventually losing its status as OpenAI’s exclusive cloud provider in January 2025. If that wasn’t enough, there’s also the matter of the two companies’ goal of achieving artificial general intelligence (AGI). Defined as when OpenAI develops AI systems that generate $100B in profits, reaching AGI means Microsoft will lose access to the former’s technology. With the company behind ChatGPT expecting to triple its 2025 revenue to $12.7 from $3.7B the previous year, this could happen sooner rather than later. While OpenAI already has deals with Microsoft, Oracle, and CoreWeave to provide it with cloud services and access to infrastructure, it needs more and soon as the company has seen massive growth in the past few months. In February, OpenAI announced that it had over 400M weekly active users, up from 300M in December 2024. Meanwhile, the number of its business users who use ChatGPT Enterprise, ChatGPT Team, and ChatGPT Edu products also jumped from 2M in February to 3M in March. The good news is Google is more than ready to deliver. Its parent company has earmarked $75B towards its investments in AI this year, which includes boosting its cloud computing capacity. In April, Google launched its 7th generation tensor processing unit (TPU) called Ironwood, which has been designed specifically for inference. According to the company, the new TPU will help power AI models that will ‘proactively retrieve and generate data to collaboratively deliver insights and answers, not just data.’The deal with OpenAI can be seen as a vote of confidence in Google’s cloud computing capability that competes with the likes of Microsoft Azure and Amazon Web Services. It also expands Google’s vast client list that includes tech, gaming, entertainment, and retail companies, as well as organizations in the public sector. As technology continues to evolve—from the return of 'dumbphones' to faster and sleeker computers—seasoned tech journalist, Cedric Solidon, continues to dedicate himself to writing stories that inform, empower, and connect with readers across all levels of digital literacy. With 20 years of professional writing experience, this University of the Philippines Journalism graduate has carved out a niche as a trusted voice in tech media. Whether he's breaking down the latest advancements in cybersecurity or explaining how silicon-carbon batteries can extend your phone’s battery life, his writing remains rooted in clarity, curiosity, and utility. Long before he was writing for Techreport, HP, Citrix, SAP, Globe Telecom, CyberGhost VPN, and ExpressVPN, Cedric's love for technology began at home courtesy of a Nintendo Family Computer and a stack of tech magazines. Growing up, his days were often filled with sessions of Contra, Bomberman, Red Alert 2, and the criminally underrated Crusader: No Regret. But gaming wasn't his only gateway to tech.  He devoured every T3, PCMag, and PC Gamer issue he could get his hands on, often reading them cover to cover. It wasn’t long before he explored the early web in IRC chatrooms, online forums, and fledgling tech blogs, soaking in every byte of knowledge from the late '90s and early 2000s internet boom. That fascination with tech didn’t just stick. It evolved into a full-blown calling. After graduating with a degree in Journalism, he began his writing career at the dawn of Web 2.0. What started with small editorial roles and freelance gigs soon grew into a full-fledged career. He has since collaborated with global tech leaders, lending his voice to content that bridges technical expertise with everyday usability. He’s also written annual reports for Globe Telecom and consumer-friendly guides for VPN companies like CyberGhost and ExpressVPN, empowering readers to understand the importance of digital privacy. His versatility spans not just tech journalism but also technical writing. He once worked with a local tech company developing web and mobile apps for logistics firms, crafting documentation and communication materials that brought together user-friendliness with deep technical understanding. That experience sharpened his ability to break down dense, often jargon-heavy material into content that speaks clearly to both developers and decision-makers. At the heart of his work lies a simple belief: technology should feel empowering, not intimidating. Even if the likes of smartphones and AI are now commonplace, he understands that there's still a knowledge gap, especially when it comes to hardware or the real-world benefits of new tools. His writing hopes to help close that gap. Cedric’s writing style reflects that mission. It’s friendly without being fluffy and informative without being overwhelming. Whether writing for seasoned IT professionals or casual readers curious about the latest gadgets, he focuses on how a piece of technology can improve our lives, boost our productivity, or make our work more efficient. That human-first approach makes his content feel more like a conversation than a technical manual. As his writing career progresses, his passion for tech journalism remains as strong as ever. With the growing need for accessible, responsible tech communication, he sees his role not just as a journalist but as a guide who helps readers navigate a digital world that’s often as confusing as it is exciting. From reviewing the latest devices to unpacking global tech trends, Cedric isn’t just reporting on the future; he’s helping to write it. View all articles by Cedric Solidon Our editorial process The Tech Report editorial policy is centered on providing helpful, accurate content that offers real value to our readers. We only work with experienced writers who have specific knowledge in the topics they cover, including latest developments in technology, online privacy, cryptocurrencies, software, and more. Our editorial policy ensures that each topic is researched and curated by our in-house editors. We maintain rigorous journalistic standards, and every article is 100% written by real authors.

Drinking Fountain of La Arboleda (Bebedero) | 1970s Photograph Luis Barragan’s work is often celebrated for its profound dialogue between form, memory, and landscape. In the Drinking Fountain of La Arboleda, Barragán channels these core principles into a singular architectural gesture. Situated at the culmination of the Paseo de los Gigantes, this fountain transcends utilitarian function to become a space of contemplation and poetic reflection. Drinking Fountain of La Arboleda Technical Information Architects1-2: Luis Barragán Location: Avenida Paseo de los Gigantes, Las Arboledas, Mexico Height: 14.6 meters Width: 10.4 meters Project Years: 1960s Plans by: Enrique Delgado Camara In Las Arboledas I had the pleasure of building a large rectangular pond among eucalyptus trees; however, while doing so, I thought of Persian gardens, I also thought of De Chirico, I also thought that water is a mirror, and I liked that it reflected the branches of the trees. You know, popular architecture has always impressed me because it is pure truth and because the spaces that occur in plazas, in porticos, in courtyards, are always given with generosity. – Luis Barragán Drinking Fountain of La Arboleda Photographs Drinking Fountain of La Arboleda (Bebedero) | 1970s Photograph 1970s Photograph 1970s Photograph 1970s Photograph 1970s Photograph Spatial Composition and Geometric Manipulation The project extends Barragán’s broader explorations in Las Arboledas and Los Clubes, developments marked by an intimate relationship with nature and a restrained formal language. Here, water becomes material and metaphor, shaping a spatial experience that is as much about the mind as the body. The Drinking Fountain of La Arboleda is defined by the dynamic interplay of two elements: a towering white wall and a long, linear water trough. The wall, rising to a height of 14.6 meters, asserts its presence in the landscape as a vertical marker. It competes with, yet does not overshadow, the surrounding eucalyptus trees. The water trough, measuring 44 meters in length, 2.55 meters in width, and 0.67 meters in height, extends along the path in a measured horizontal counterpoint. This juxtaposition of vertical and horizontal geometries establishes a composition of duality. The white wall commands attention from afar, while the dark basin of water, offset to the side, quietly draws in the viewer’s gaze. The deliberate misalignment of these two forms prevents a static symmetry, generating a subtle sense of movement and tension within the space. Barragán’s manipulation of circulation further reinforces this dynamic quality. Rather than a direct approach, entry to the plaza is orchestrated through a series of turns. These indirect paths obscure the view and gradually reveal the fountain, heightening the sense of arrival and emphasizing the experiential choreography of the approach. Materiality and Sensory Qualities Material choices are critical in the fountain’s ability to evoke stillness and dynamism. The white stucco of the wall acts as a canvas for the interplay of light and shadow, particularly as the sun filters through the towering eucalyptus canopy. This shifting luminosity imbues the space with a living quality, constantly animated by the rhythms of the day. The basin of the fountain is constructed from dark anthracite, lending the water a reflective depth that absorbs and mirrors the surrounding environment. The edge of the water, defined by precisely cut, sharp-edged walls, creates an illusion of the water as a freestanding volume. This interplay of light, shadow, and reflection intensifies the perception of depth, dissolving the boundary between container and contained. The gentle sound of water flowing over the basin’s edge adds a sonic dimension to the experience. It serves as a subtle counterpoint to the plaza’s otherwise hushed atmosphere, enhancing the sensory richness without disrupting the meditative calm. Drinking Fountain of La Arboleda Cultural Resonance In this project, Barragán evokes a memory of rural Mexico that resonates with personal nostalgia and collective cultural imagery. The trough recalls the water basins of his childhood, echoing the hacienda landscapes and the enduring significance of water in Mexican life. Yet, by abstracting these elements into minimalist forms, he situates them within a modern architectural discourse that transcends mere historicism. Barragán’s insistence on the evocative power of space is evident in every aspect of the Drinking Fountain. It is a site of transition, marking the end of the linear paseo while simultaneously inviting introspection and pause. The project’s restrained materiality and precise spatial articulation distill Barragán’s belief in architecture as a vehicle for personal reflection and cultural continuity. His 1980 Pritzker Prize acceptance speech, in which he described his enduring fascination with water and the memories of fountains and acequias, underscores this deep personal connection. The Drinking Fountain of La Arboleda can be read as an architectural meditation on that theme. This work bridges the abstraction of modernism with the rich, elemental forces of the Mexican landscape. Drinking Fountain of La Arboleda Plans Floor Plan | © Enrique Delgado Camara Axonometric View | © Enrique Delgado Camara Drinking Fountain of La Arboleda Image Gallery About Luis Barragán Luis Barragán (1902–1988) was a Mexican architect renowned for his masterful integration of light, color, and landscape into architecture. His work blends modernist abstraction with deeply rooted Mexican traditions, crafting spaces that evoke memory, contemplation, and poetic resonance. Credits and Additional Notes Water Trough (Bebedero) Length: 44 meters Water Trough (Bebedero) Width: 2.55 meters Water Trough (Bebedero) Height: 0.67 meters Material: Anthracite-colored stone (dark tone to enhance reflections) Delgado Cámara, Enrique. La Geometría del Agua: Mecanismos Arquitectónicos de Manipulación Espacial. Enrique Delgado Cámara, 2024.  Ambasz, Emilio. The Architecture of Luis Barragán. Museum of Modern Art, New York, 1976.

Installations on corporate campuses are often more than just eye candy. They’re a preview of the company’s ethos, a physical expression of how they think and create. So it’s no surprise that Google’s latest architectural addition doesn’t just stand out – it computes. The Orb designed by Marc Fornes, founder of art and architecture studio THEVERYMANY, is a jaw-dropping pavilion that lives on the tech giant’s Charleston East Campus. With its swirling, code-born structure and shimmering, spaceship-like exterior, The Orb looks like something generated by an algorithm, and that’s because it is. Set against a backdrop of tree-lined paths and native landscaping, The Orb rises like an artifact from another world – yet feels perfectly at home alongside Google’s modern campus. Measuring 10 meters tall and 26 meters wide, it makes a striking first impression. Despite being constructed from aluminum just 3mm thick, the structure is entirely self-supporting – a feat made possible through advanced computational design and Fornes’ longtime fascination with using algorithms and code to generate form. From afar, it resembles a futuristic seedpod or celestial vessel; up close, its perforated skin creates a shifting experience that changes with the weather. Part sculpture, part shelter, The Orb invites curious passersby to pause, step inside, and explore. On sunny days, daylight filters through the aluminum skin, casting dappled shadows across the ground while the canopy above evokes a starry night. Come evening, the installation glows with ground-level spotlights, turning its surface into a mesmerizing play of light and shadow that amplifies its sculptural presence. Though its fluid form suggests it was forged from a single sheet of metal, The Orb is actually composed of 6,441 individual aluminum pieces held together by more than 217,000 rivets – a fact that underscores the sculpture’s dual identity as both architecture and art. “For architects, we’re too much of an artist; for artists, too much of an architect,” says Fornes. That in-between sensibility is exactly what makes The Orb so compelling: it defies easy categorization, blending structure, sculpture, and spatial experience into something entirely new. It’s a fitting symbol of innovation – one that mirrors Google’s own ethos of pushing boundaries through design and technology. For more information on The Orb, visit theverymany.com. Photography by Younes Bounhar of Doublespace Photography.

Key Takeaways New EU rules take effect June 20, 2025, requiring mobile phones and tablets to be easier and cheaper to repair, including mandatory access to spare parts for up to seven years. Devices must meet durability standards, such as resistance to drops, water, and dust, and batteries must retain 80% capacity after 800 cycles. Manufacturers must offer 5 years of software updates and grant repair professionals access to firmware and repair tools to ensure long-term device usability. Energy consumption is expected to drop, with households projected to save €98 over five years due to longer-lasting, more repairable devices. In a win for the right to repair, the European Union (EU) has released its new energy labeling and ecodesign requirements for mobile phones, tablets, and even cordless phones.  Once implemented, this would help extend the product lifetime of these devices by making them cheaper and easier to repair. Up Ahead: Long-Lasting and Easy-to-Repair Devices The new ecodesign and energy labeling regulations will apply to devices sold in the EU effective June 20, 2025. One key area is the availability of spare parts. Once the regulations take effect, critical spare parts for a device must remain available for seven years from the last day the producer stops selling it. These parts must also be available to repairers within 5–10 working days. Mobile phones, cordless phones, and tablets under the ecodesign regulations must also be resistant to scratches and accidental drops, and be protected from dust and water.  The EU also specified that batteries must withstand at least 800 charge and discharge cycles while holding 80% of their initial capacity. These measures could help ensure devices last longer, thus reducing the need to replace them and lowering their cost of ownership. The requirements go beyond just the hardware. On the software side, manufacturers must also provide at least 5 years of operating system upgrades and give professional repairers access to software or firmware.  These would allow devices to continue to run smoothly and protect them from security vulnerabilities. On top of the ecodesign requirements, the EU also specified energy labeling requirements on the applicable devices. The labels would provide information about the device’s repairability score, energy efficiency, battery longevity, dust and water protection, and resistance to accidental drops. Having clear and easy-to-understand labels can help consumers in the EU make better choices when buying phones and tablets. They’ll know at a glance whether a device can withstand drops or if the batteries will remain reliable for as long as possible. The Projected Impact of the Ecodesign and Energy Labeling Requirements With the new requirements, the EU expects a significant reduction in the energy consumption of the applicable devices. Regarding charging time, this should go down from 2.5 to 1.75 hours per day.  Also, the annual electrical consumption of high-end smartphones is projected to decrease by 25%, while it’s 23% for tablets by 2030. Making devices easier to repair is also seen to reduce the acquisition costs of devices by € 98 per household in five years. A Win for the Right to Repair, But Obstacles Lie Ahead While the EU has already made significant progress in the area of the right to repair, many countries remain well behind. In the US, for instance, only a handful of states like California and Colorado have already enacted right-to-repair laws, while most of the country has yet to catch up. Without laws like these, most manufacturers won’t have the incentive to make their devices easier to repair.  A quick look at iFixit’s smartphone repairability scores shows that only Fairphone, which scored a perfect 10, HMD (9), and Nokia (8) had high scores among current phones. At the same time, Apple’s iPhone 16 line received a respectable 7. The Fairphone 5, launched in 2023, is especially notable for its repairability. According to iFixit, it’s easy to disassemble with common tools, the battery can be replaced quickly, and manuals and replacement parts are available to DIYers. As for the others, Ifixit gave Google’s Pixel 9 series a 5 for making it difficult to remove the battery and the USB-C port and requiring a replacement adhesive to secure the screen or back glass instead of using clips or fasteners. Meanwhile, the Samsung Galaxy S23 Ultra received a 4 because the battery is attached with a strong adhesive, and repairing the screen needs a lot of disassembly. All in all, we remain hopeful that with the EU’s lead, manufacturers can finally be encouraged to make repairing their devices easier than ever before. As technology continues to evolve—from the return of 'dumbphones' to faster and sleeker computers—seasoned tech journalist, Cedric Solidon, continues to dedicate himself to writing stories that inform, empower, and connect with readers across all levels of digital literacy. With 20 years of professional writing experience, this University of the Philippines Journalism graduate has carved out a niche as a trusted voice in tech media. Whether he's breaking down the latest advancements in cybersecurity or explaining how silicon-carbon batteries can extend your phone’s battery life, his writing remains rooted in clarity, curiosity, and utility. Long before he was writing for Techreport, HP, Citrix, SAP, Globe Telecom, CyberGhost VPN, and ExpressVPN, Cedric's love for technology began at home courtesy of a Nintendo Family Computer and a stack of tech magazines. Growing up, his days were often filled with sessions of Contra, Bomberman, Red Alert 2, and the criminally underrated Crusader: No Regret. But gaming wasn't his only gateway to tech.  He devoured every T3, PCMag, and PC Gamer issue he could get his hands on, often reading them cover to cover. It wasn’t long before he explored the early web in IRC chatrooms, online forums, and fledgling tech blogs, soaking in every byte of knowledge from the late '90s and early 2000s internet boom. That fascination with tech didn’t just stick. It evolved into a full-blown calling. After graduating with a degree in Journalism, he began his writing career at the dawn of Web 2.0. What started with small editorial roles and freelance gigs soon grew into a full-fledged career. He has since collaborated with global tech leaders, lending his voice to content that bridges technical expertise with everyday usability. He’s also written annual reports for Globe Telecom and consumer-friendly guides for VPN companies like CyberGhost and ExpressVPN, empowering readers to understand the importance of digital privacy. His versatility spans not just tech journalism but also technical writing. He once worked with a local tech company developing web and mobile apps for logistics firms, crafting documentation and communication materials that brought together user-friendliness with deep technical understanding. That experience sharpened his ability to break down dense, often jargon-heavy material into content that speaks clearly to both developers and decision-makers. At the heart of his work lies a simple belief: technology should feel empowering, not intimidating. Even if the likes of smartphones and AI are now commonplace, he understands that there's still a knowledge gap, especially when it comes to hardware or the real-world benefits of new tools. His writing hopes to help close that gap. Cedric’s writing style reflects that mission. It’s friendly without being fluffy and informative without being overwhelming. Whether writing for seasoned IT professionals or casual readers curious about the latest gadgets, he focuses on how a piece of technology can improve our lives, boost our productivity, or make our work more efficient. That human-first approach makes his content feel more like a conversation than a technical manual. As his writing career progresses, his passion for tech journalism remains as strong as ever. With the growing need for accessible, responsible tech communication, he sees his role not just as a journalist but as a guide who helps readers navigate a digital world that’s often as confusing as it is exciting. From reviewing the latest devices to unpacking global tech trends, Cedric isn’t just reporting on the future; he’s helping to write it. View all articles by Cedric Solidon Our editorial process The Tech Report editorial policy is centered on providing helpful, accurate content that offers real value to our readers. We only work with experienced writers who have specific knowledge in the topics they cover, including latest developments in technology, online privacy, cryptocurrencies, software, and more. Our editorial policy ensures that each topic is researched and curated by our in-house editors. We maintain rigorous journalistic standards, and every article is 100% written by real authors.

House of the Future | 1956 Photograph Exhibited at the 1956 Ideal Home Exhibition in London, the House of the Future by Alison and Peter Smithson is a visionary prototype that challenges conventions of domesticity. Set within the context of post-war Britain, a period marked by austerity and emerging optimism, the project explored the intersection of technology, material innovation, and evolving social dynamics. The Smithsons, already recognized for their theoretical rigor and critical stance toward mainstream modernism, sought to push the boundaries of domestic architecture. In the House of the Future, they offered not merely a dwelling but a speculative environment that engaged with the promise and anxieties of the atomic age. House of the Future Technical Information Architects: Alison and Peter Smithson Location: Ideal Home Exhibition, London, United Kingdom Client: Daily Mail Ideal Home Exhibition  Gross Area: 90 m2 | 970 Sq. Ft. Construction Year: 1956 Photographs: Canadian Centre for Architecture and Unknown Photographer The House of the Future should be a serious attempt to visualize the future of our daily living in the light of modern knowledge and available materials. – Alison and Peter Smithson 1 House of the Future Photographs 1956 Photograph © Klaas Vermaas | 1956 Photograph 1956 Photograph 1956 Photograph 1956 Photograph 1956 Photograph 1956 Photograph 1956 Photograph Design Intent and Spatial Organization At the heart of the House of the Future lies a radical rethinking of spatial organization. Departing from conventional room hierarchies, the design promotes an open, fluid environment. Walls dissolve into curved partitions and adjustable elements, allowing for flexible reinterpretation of domestic spaces. Sleeping, dining, and social areas are loosely demarcated, creating a dynamic continuity that anticipates the contemporary concept of adaptable, multi-functional living. Circulation is conceived as an experiential sequence rather than a rigid path. Visitors enter through an air-lock-like vestibule, an explicit nod to the futuristic theme, and are drawn into an environment that eschews right angles and conventional thresholds. The Smithsons’ emphasis on flexibility and continuous movement within the house reflects their belief that domestic architecture must accommodate the evolving rhythms of life. Materiality, Technology, and the Future Materiality in the House of the Future embodies the optimism of the era. Plastics and synthetic finishes dominate the interior, forming seamless surfaces that evoke a sense of sterility and futility. Often associated with industrial production, these materials signaled a departure from traditional domestic textures. The smooth, malleable surfaces of the house reinforce the Smithsons’ embrace of prefabrication and modularity. Technological integration is a key theme. The design includes built-in appliances and concealed mechanical systems, hinting at a utopian and disquieting automated lifestyle. Bathrooms, kitchens, and sleeping pods are incorporated as interchangeable modules, underscoring the house as a system rather than a static structure. In doing so, the Smithsons prefigured later discourses on the “smart home” and the seamless integration of technology into daily life. This material and technological strategy reflects a critical understanding of domestic labor and convenience. The house’s self-contained gadgets and synthetic surfaces suggest a future in which maintenance and domestic chores are minimized, freeing inhabitants to engage with broader cultural and social pursuits. Legacy and Influence The House of the Future’s influence resonates far beyond its exhibition. It prefigured the radical experimentation of groups like Archigram and the metabolist visions of the 1960s. Its modular approach and embrace of technology also foreshadowed the high-tech movement’s fascination with flexibility and systems thinking. While the project was ephemeral, a temporary installation at a trade fair, its theoretical provocations endure. It questioned how architecture could not only house but also anticipate and shape new living forms. Moreover, it crystallized the Smithsons’ ongoing interrogation of architecture’s social role, from their later brutalist housing schemes to urban design theories. In retrospect, the House of the Future is less of a resolved design proposal and more of an architectural manifesto. It embodies a critical tension: the optimism of technological progress and the need for architecture to respond to human adaptability and social evolution. As we confront contemporary challenges like climate crisis, digital living, and shifting social paradigms, the Smithsons’ speculative experiment remains an evocative reminder that the architecture of tomorrow must be as thoughtful and provocative as the House of the Future. House of the Future Plans Axonometric View | © Alison and Peter Smithson via CCA Floor Plan | © Alison and Peter Smithson, via CCA Floor Plan | © Alison and Peter Smithson, via CCA Section | © Alison and Peter Smithson, via CCA Section | © Alison and Peter Smithson, via CCA Section | © Alison and Peter Smithson, via CCA Section | © Alison and Peter Smithson, via CCA Section | © Alison and Peter Smithson, via CCA House of the Future Image Gallery About Alison and Peter Smithson Alison and Peter Smithson were British architects and influential thinkers who emerged in the mid-20th century, celebrated for their critical reimagining of modern architecture. Their work, including projects like the House of the Future, the Robin Hood Gardens housing complex, and the Upper Lawn Solar Pavilion, consistently challenged conventional notions of domesticity, urbanism, and materiality. Central to their practice was a belief in architecture’s capacity to shape social life, emphasizing adaptability, flexibility, and the dynamic interactions between buildings and their users. They were pivotal in bridging the gap between post-war modernism and the experimental architectural movements of the 1960s and 1970s. Credits and Additional Notes Banham, Reyner. Theory and Design in the First Machine Age. MIT Press, 1960. Forty, Adrian. Words and Buildings: A Vocabulary of Modern Architecture. Thames & Hudson, 2000. Smithson, Alison, and Peter Smithson. The Charged Void: Architecture. Monacelli Press, 2001. OASE Journal. “Houses of the Future: 1956 and Beyond.” OASE 75, 2007. Vidler, Anthony. Histories of the Immediate Present: Inventing Architectural Modernism. MIT Press, 2008. Canadian Centre for Architecture (CCA). “House of the Future.”

Many don’t like it, but (almost) everybody agrees it’s the future.“Vibe Coding” is everywhere. Tools and game engines are implementing AI-assisted coding, vibe coding interest skyrocketed on Google search, on social media, everybody claims to build apps and games in minutes, while the comment section gets flooded with angry developers calling out the pile of garbage code that will never be shipped.A screenshot from Andrej Karpathy with the original “definition” of Vibe CodingBUT, how do professionals feel about it?This is what I will cover in this article. We will look at:How people react to the term vibe coding,How their attitude differs based on who they are and their professional experienceThe reason for their stance towards “vibe coding” (with direct quotes)How they feel about the impact “vibe coding” will have in the next 5 yearsIt all started with this survey on LinkedIn. I have always been curious about how technology can support creatives and I believe that the only way to get a deeper understanding is to go beyond buzzwords and ask the hard questions. That’s why for over a year, I’ve been conducting weekly interviews with both the founders developing these tools and the creatives utilising them. If you want to learn their journeys, I’ve gathered their insights and experiences on my blog called XR AI Spotlight.Driven by the same motives and curious about people’s feelings about “vibe coding”, I asked a simple question: How does the term “Vibe Coding” make you feel?Original LinkedIn poll by Gabriele RomagnoliIn just three days, the poll collected 139 votes and it was clear that most responders didn’t have a good “vibe” about it. The remaining half was equally split between excitement and no specific feeling.But who are these people? What is their professional background? Why did they respond the way they did?Curious, I created a more comprehensive survey and sent it to everyone who voted on the LinkedIn poll.The survey had four questions:Select what describes you best: developers, creative, non-creative professionalHow many years of experience do you have? 1–5, 6–10, 11–15 or 16+Explain why the term “vibe coding” makes you feel excited/neutral/dismissive?Do you think “vibe coding” will become more relevant in the next 5 years?: It’s the future, only in niche use cases, unlikely, no idea)In a few days, I collected 62 replies and started digging into the findings, and that’s when I finally started understanding who took part in the initial poll.The audienceWhen characterising the audience, I refrained from adding too many options because I just wanted to understand:If the people responding were the ones making stuffWhat percentage of makers were creatives and what developersI was happy to see that only 8% of respondents were non-creative professionals and the remaining 92% were actual makers who have more “skin in the game“ with almost a 50/50 split between creatives and developers. There was also a good spread in the degree of professional experience of the respondents, but that’s where things started to get surprising.Respondents are mostly “makers” and show a good variety in professional experienceWhen creating 2 groups with people who have more or less than 10 years of experience, it is clear that less experienced professionals skew more towards a neutral or negative stance than the more experienced group.Experienced professionals are more positive and open to vibe codingThis might be because senior professionals see AI as a tool to accelerate their workflows, while more juniors perceive it as a competitor or threat.I then took out the non-professional creatives and looked at the attitude of these 2 groups. Not surprisingly, fewer creatives than developers have a negative attitude towards “vibe coding” (47% for developers Vs 37% for creatives), but the percentage of creatives and developers who have a positive attitude stays almost constant. This means that creatives have a more indecisive or neutral stance than developers.Creatives have a more positive attitude to vibe coding than developersWhat are people saying about “vibe coding”?As part of the survey, everybody had the chance to add a few sentences explaining their stance. This was not a compulsory field, but to my surprise, only 3 of the 62 left it empty (thanks everybody). Before getting into the sentiment analysis, I noticed something quite interesting while filtering the data. People with a negative attitude had much more to say, and their responses were significantly longer than the other group. They wrote an average of 59 words while the others barely 37 and I think is a good indication of the emotional investment of people who want to articulate and explain their point. Let’s now look at what the different groups of people replied.😍 Patterns in Positive Responses to “Vibe Coding”Positive responders often embraced vibe coding as a way to break free from rigid programming structures and instead explore, improvise, and experiment creatively.“It puts no pressure on it being perfect or thorough.”“Pursuing the vibe, trying what works and then adapt.”“Coding can be geeky and laborious… ‘vibing’ is quite nice.”This perspective repositions code not as rigid infrastructure, but something that favors creativity and playfulness over precision.Several answers point to vibe coding as a democratizing force opening up coding to a broader audience, who want to build without going through the traditional gatekeeping of engineering culture.“For every person complaining… there are ten who are dabbling in code and programming, building stuff without permission.”“Bridges creative with technical perfectly, thus creating potential for independence.”This group often used words like “freedom,” “reframing,” and “revolution.”.😑 Patterns in Neutral Responses to “Vibe Coding”As shown in the initial LinkedIn poll, 27% of respondents expressed mixed feelings. When going through their responses, they recognised potential and were open to experimentation but they also had lingering doubts about the name, seriousness, and future usefulness.“It’s still a hype or buzzword.”“I have mixed feelings of fascination and scepticism.”“Unsure about further developments.”They were on the fence and were often enthusiastic about the capability, but wary of the framing.Neutral responders also acknowledged that complex, polished, or production-level work still requires traditional approaches and framed vibe coding as an early-stage assistant, not a full solution.“Nice tool, but not more than autocomplete on steroids.”“Helps get setup quickly… but critical thinking is still a human job.”“Great for prototyping, not enough to finalize product.”Some respondents were indifferent to the term itself, viewing it more as a label or meme than a paradigm shift. For them, it doesn’t change the substance of what’s happening.“At the end of the day they are just words. Are you able to accomplish what’s needed?”“I think it’s been around forever, just now with a new name.”These voices grounded the discussion in the terminology and I think they bring up a very important point that leads to the polarisation of a lot of the conversations around “vibe coding”.🤮 Patterns in Negative Responses to “Vibe Coding”Many respondents expressed concern that vibe coding implies a casual, unstructured approach to coding. This was often linked to fears about poor code quality, bugs, and security issues.“Feels like building a house without knowing how electricity and water systems work.”“Without fundamental knowledge… you quickly lose control over the output.”The term was also seen as dismissive or diminishing the value of skilled developers. It really rubbed people the wrong way, especially those with professional experience.“It downplays the skill and intention behind writing a functional, efficient program.”“Vibe coding implies not understanding what the AI does but still micromanaging it.”Like for “neutral” respondents, there’s a strong mistrust around how the term is used (especially on social media) where it’s seen as fueling unrealistic expectations or being pushed by non-experts.“Used to promote coding without knowledge.”“Just another overhyped term like NFTs or memecoins.”“It feels like a joke that went too far.”Ultimately, I decided to compare attitudes that are excited (positive) and accepting (neutral) of vibe coding vs. those that reject or criticise it. After all, even among people who were neutral, there was a general acceptance that vibe coding has its place. Many saw it as a useful tool for things like prototyping, creative exploration, or simply making it easier to get started. What really stood out, though, was the absence of fear that was very prominent in the “negative” group and saw vibe coding as a threat to software quality or professional identity.People in the neutral and positive groups generally see potential. They view it as useful for prototyping, creative exploration, or making coding more accessible, but they still recognise the need for structure in complex systems. In contrast, the negative group rejects the concept outright, and not just the name, but what it stands for: a more casual, less rigorous approach to coding. Their opinion is often rooted in defending software engineering as a disciplined craft… and probably their job.😍 “As long as you understand the result and the process, AI can write and fix scripts much faster than humans can.”🤮 “It’s a joke. It started as a joke… but to me doesn’t encapsulate actual AI co-engineering.”On the topic of skill and control, the neutral and positive group sees AI as a helpful assistant, assuming that a human is still guiding the process. They mention refining and reviewing as normal parts of the workflow. The negative group sees more danger, fearing that vibe coding gives a false sense of competence. They describe it as producing buggy or shallow results, often in the hands of inexperienced users.😑 “Critical thinking is still a human job… but vibe coding helps with fast results.”🤮“Vibe-Coding takes away the very features of a good developer… logical thinking and orchestration are crucial.”Culturally, the divide is clear. The positive and neutral voices often embrace vibe coding as part of a broader shift, welcoming new types of creators and perspectives. They tend to come from design or interdisciplinary backgrounds and are more comfortable with playful language. On the other hand, the negative group associates the term with hype and cringe, criticising it as disrespectful to those who’ve spent years honing their technical skills.😍“It’s about playful, relaxed creation — for the love of making something.”🤮Creating a lot of unsafe bloatware with no proper planning.”What’s the future of “Vibe Coding”?The responses to the last question were probably the most surprising to me. I was expecting that the big scepticism towards vibe coding would align with the scepticism on its future, but that was not the case. 90% of people still see “vibe coding” becoming more relevant overall or in niche use cases.Vibe coding is here to stayOut of curiosity, I also went back to see if there was any difference based on professional experience, and that’s where we see the more experienced audience being more conservative. Only 30% of more senior Vs 50% of less experienced professionals see vibe coding playing a role in niche use cases and 13 % Vs only 3% of more experienced users don’t see vibe coding becoming more relevant at all.More experienced professionals are less likely to think Vibe Coding is the futureThere are still many open questions. What is “vibe coding” really? For whom is it? What can you do with it?To answer these questions, I decided to start a new survey you can find here. If you would like to further contribute to this research, I encourage you to participate and in case you are interested, I will share the results with you as well.The more I read or learn about this, I feel “Vibe Coding” is like the “Metaverse”:Some people hate it, some people love it.Everybody means something differentIn one form or another, it is here to stay.What professionals really think about “Vibe Coding” was originally published in UX Collective on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

Frankenstein, the post-Enlightenment novel written by a teenage girl that invented modern science fiction, has long been Guillermo del Toro’s white whale. The Mexican filmmaker has eyed adapting Mary Shelley’s story of a modern day Prometheus since the 1990s. And now it’s almost here. It’s a good feeling for the filmmaker and his admirers… but it also an opportunity of mounting excitement for fans of Shelley, too, since so much of her 1818 masterpiece remains mostly associated with the page in spite of the countless film adaptations based on the story of a man and his monster. And as judged by the first remarkable teaser trailer of Frankenstein introduced by del Toro and stars Oscar Isaac and Mia Goth at Netflix’s Tudum event Saturday night, it’s safe to stay that del Toro is pulling from Shelley directly… including a wrap-around story of hers that is seldom ever attempted on the screen. “What manner of creature is that?” a shaken voice whispers in the new Frankenstein trailer. “What manner of devil made him?” We never exactly see what countenance could earn the dehumanizing term “creature” in the trailer, but we feel his presence. He is a silhouette, a shadow—a vengeful wraith—walking across a sheet of ice with the sunset to his back. And he is approaching what is demonstrably a half-mad, frostbitten Victor Frankenstein (Oscar Isaac), who can only say in his frozen delirium “I did.” Victor is the devil who made that. For fans of Shelley’s novel, or just those with a good memory of Kenneth Branagh’s now mostly forgotten 1994 adaptation of the book, this framing device should send a chill of anticipation through the spine as giddy as any more familiar promises of gods and monsters. That’s because del Toro is adapting the cruel framing device Shelley used to introduce both Victor and the creature he pursues. Indeed, most of Frankenstein on the page is told in flashback and relayed by our protagonist Victor as a kind of last rites confession as he dies from fever and starvation after years and years of chasing his creation north. Always north. Whereas most of the novel takes place actually at the end of the Enlightenment era of the 19th century—the glory days of Mary’s famous philosophical and activist parents—the only “modern” part of the story is to compare the zeal for discovery in Victor with what was only a dawning fascination in the 19th century with discovering the North Pole (a feat that wouldn’t actually be accomplished until the early 20th century). In the book, Victor’s tale of obsession for greatness causes a captain who has led his men to becoming stuck in the Arctic ice to reflect on the potentially lethal consequences of his ambitions—especially after he meets the Monster who later verifies Victor’s story by mourning over the scientist’s body. The framing device is fascinating because of where it places the story in history, but also because it elevates the tragedy of the so-called Monster and his Creator. Who was really hunting who at the end of the world in the North Pole, and who is truly the monster? The Creature did terrible things, but how much of that is Victor’s fault for abandoning his progeny to a lifetime of loneliness hatred, and despair, including by that which gave him life? Both suffer tragic fates in the end in the cold. Unloved and unremembered, except by one sea captain no one will believe. While it remains to be seen if del Toro is doing a straight-ahead faithful adaptation of the novel—in fact we can assume he is not since Isaac’s Victor dresses more like a Victorian of the mid-19th century than a contemporary of Voltaire or Thomas Jefferson, and we also know that Burn Gorman appears in the movie as Fritz, a character created by Universal Pictures in the iconic 1931 film adaptation starring Boris Karloff—it is fascinating to see the master filmmaker returning to the source material. It also raises questions of just where he will go with Jacob Elordi’s intentionally obscured and hidden Monster. We know from the trailer’s end with the Monster attacking the crew of the North Pole-bound ship (a beat also, we might add, is not in the novel) that he has the power of speech. It will be curious indeed to learn if he proves to be a Milton-esque philosopher demon, which is also a largely ignored element of Shelley’s original story. Frankenstein is expected to premiere in November on Netflix.

Greg Petronzi is a psychologist and a watchmaker. True Patina 2025-05-31T09:50:02Z Save Saved Read in app This story is available exclusively to Business Insider subscribers. Become an Insider and start reading now. Have an account? Greg Petronzi was a psychologist and professor when he got into watchmaking on the side. Now he repairs vintage Rolex watches and works on pieces worth six figures. Petronzi said his watchmaking out-earns his work in psychology. This as-told-to essay is based on a conversation with Greg Petronzi of True Patina, a watchmaker specializing in vintage Rolex repairs. He is also a licensed psychologist and professor at New York University. This interview has been edited for length and clarity.I've always had a fascination with watches, starting at a young age. Around middle school, I had a Swatch with a see-through plastic case and an automatic movement. You could see all of the parts of the watch as it was working, and I always found that so interesting.In college, I pursued psychology. That was my practical career path. I got a master's and a Ph.D. Overall, it was a 12-year path to becoming a licensed psychologist. But I never lost my interest in watches.After I finished school, I got into watchmaking, which ended up becoming my main gig. Psychology became my part-time gig, which I never anticipated happening, but it's super exciting. I love both disciplines.I got into watchmaking with an informal apprenticeshipWatchmaking was never really on my radar. As a grad student, I started getting involved in the world of watches and meeting other watch enthusiasts through forums and meetups.I made friends with a watchmaker out of Florida named Rik Dietel, who has 35-plus years of experience in watchmaking and specifically with vintage Rolex, which is the niche that I was very passionate about. I started asking him how to fix this or change that on my own watches. Little by little, Rik started teaching me, and it turned into an informal, remote apprenticeship.Over the next several years, while I was working as a psychologist and professor, my skillset started to really develop, and it started to become apparent to me that this might be more than just a hobby. I was working on my own stuff, then friends' watches, then friends of friends' watches. Then I started getting requests from people I didn't know. That's when I said, "I'd better take this a bit more seriously." Greg Petronzi in his workshop. True Patina During the pandemic, my psychology work went remote, and I was able to put more time and energy into watchmaking. I also had an income, which helped me afford the tools. I just recently spent about $15,000 on one tool to do a very nuanced repair.I built up my watchmaking workshop and started to develop a niche in cosmetic repair — dials and hands. Because I started as a watch collector, I understand the importance of preserving the originality of a watch. While a lot of more modern watchmakers have the disposition of "repair and replace," I have the disposition of "restore and retain."I started to showcase my work on Instagram and build trust in the community. I ended up working with some really important watch collectors and dealers, like Eric Wind of Wind Vintage, and auction houses like Phillips.There was a moment when I realized I'd made a name for myself in the watch world: Someone sent me an eBay listing that said, "Watch just serviced by True Patina." I had no idea who the seller was, but I thought, "Wow, my company name is actually carrying so much weight that people are using this as a flex toward selling their watch." That felt really good. Watchmaking can be challenging to get into, but it's really rewardingWatchmaking has more often than not outperformed what the Ph.D and psychology have allowed me to earn, which I'm astounded by and grateful for.If someone's interested in learning watchmaking, I'd say it's possible, but there are some challenges. The tools are expensive, and the formal education options are limited. Most people either find an apprenticeship or start by working for an established brand while slowly building up their own workshop.My pricing varies a lot based on how much restoration is needed. Repairs typically range between $1,000 and $2,000, but some go up to $6,000 or more, especially if a rare part needs to be sourced.I service watches that range in price from a few thousand dollars upward to six-figure watches. It's not uncommon for me to work on a watch that costs $200,000 and occasionally even up to $500,000. Most commonly, they are a few thousand up to $20,000. But what's most meaningful to me is working on sentimental pieces — watches that have been in families for generations.Becoming a watchmaker never crossed my mind as a kid or even as a college student. But all of a sudden, it organically became reality for me, and it's a very, very meaningful and enjoyable existence.Watchmaking is a very rewarding field. It can be very stressful, especially when the repair might not be cooperating the way you want it to, but when things do fall in line, it can be a very mindful activity. You get into this flow where time just sort of ceases. It's kind of ironic.Do you have a story to share about watches or watchmaking? Contact this reporter at kvlamis@businessinsider.com.