You’ve drawn fifty versions of the same screen — and you still hate every one of them. Begrudgingly, you pick three, show them to your product manager, and hear: “Looks cool, but the idea doesn’t work.” Sound familiar? In this article, I’ll unpack why designers fall into detail work at the wrong moment, examining both process pitfalls and the underlying psychological reasons, as understanding these traps is the first step to overcoming them. I’ll also share tactics I use to climb out of that trap. Reason #1 You’re Afraid To Show Rough Work We designers worship detail. We’re taught that true craft equals razor‑sharp typography, perfect grids, and pixel precision. So the minute a task arrives, we pop open Figma and start polishing long before polish is needed. I’ve skipped the sketch phase more times than I care to admit. I told myself it would be faster, yet I always ended up spending hours producing a tidy mock‑up when a scribbled thumbnail would have sparked a five‑minute chat with my product manager. Rough sketches felt “unprofessional,” so I hid them. The cost? Lost time, wasted energy — and, by the third redo, teammates were quietly wondering if I even understood the brief. The real problem here is the habit: we open Figma and start perfecting the UI before we’ve even solved the problem. So why do we hide these rough sketches? It’s not just a bad habit or plain silly. There are solid psychological reasons behind it. We often just call it perfectionism, but it’s deeper than wanting things neat. Digging into the psychology (like the research by Hewitt and Flett) shows there are a couple of flavors driving this: Socially prescribed perfectionismIt’s that nagging feeling that everyone else expects perfect work from you, which makes showing anything rough feel like walking into the lion’s den. Self-oriented perfectionismWhere you’re the one setting impossibly high standards for yourself, leading to brutal self-criticism if anything looks slightly off. Either way, the result’s the same: showing unfinished work feels wrong, and you miss out on that vital early feedback. Back to the design side, remember that clients rarely see architects’ first pencil sketches, but these sketches still exist; they guide structural choices before the 3D render. Treat your thumbnails the same way — artifacts meant to collapse uncertainty, not portfolio pieces. Once stakeholders see the upside, roughness becomes a badge of speed, not sloppiness. So, the key is to consciously make that shift: Treat early sketches as disposable tools for thinking and actively share them to get feedback faster. Reason #2: You Fix The Symptom, Not The Cause Before tackling any task, we need to understand what business outcome we’re aiming for. Product managers might come to us asking to enlarge the payment button in the shopping cart because users aren’t noticing it. The suggested solution itself isn’t necessarily bad, but before redesigning the button, we should ask, “What data suggests they aren’t noticing it?” Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying you shouldn’t trust your product manager. On the contrary, these questions help ensure you’re on the same page and working with the same data. From my experience, here are several reasons why users might not be clicking that coveted button: Users don’t understand that this step is for payment. They understand it’s about payment but expect order confirmation first. Due to incorrect translation, users don’t understand what the button means. Lack of trust signals (no security icons, unclear seller information). Unexpected additional costs (hidden fees, shipping) that appear at this stage. Technical issues (inactive button, page freezing). Now, imagine you simply did what the manager suggested. Would you have solved the problem? Hardly. Moreover, the responsibility for the unresolved issue would fall on you, as the interface solution lies within the design domain. The product manager actually did their job correctly by identifying a problem: suspiciously, few users are clicking the button. Psychologically, taking on this bigger role isn’t easy. It means overcoming the fear of making mistakes and the discomfort of exploring unclear problems rather than just doing tasks. This shift means seeing ourselves as partners who create value — even if it means fighting a hesitation to question product managers (which might come from a fear of speaking up or a desire to avoid challenging authority) — and understanding that using our product logic expertise proactively is crucial for modern designers. There’s another critical reason why we, designers, need to be a bit like product managers: the rise of AI. I deliberately used a simple example about enlarging a button, but I’m confident that in the near future, AI will easily handle routine design tasks. This worries me, but at the same time, I’m already gladly stepping into the product manager’s territory: understanding product and business metrics, formulating hypotheses, conducting research, and so on. It might sound like I’m taking work away from PMs, but believe me, they undoubtedly have enough on their plates and are usually more than happy to delegate some responsibilities to designers. Reason #3: You’re Solving The Wrong Problem Before solving anything, ask whether the problem even deserves your attention. During a major home‑screen redesign, our goal was to drive more users into paid services. The initial hypothesis — making service buttons bigger and brighter might help returning users — seemed reasonable enough to test. However, even when A/B tests (a method of comparing two versions of a design to determine which performs better) showed minimal impact, we continued to tweak those buttons. Only later did it click: the home screen isn’t the place to sell; visitors open the app to start, not to buy. We removed that promo block, and nothing broke. Contextual entry points deeper into the journey performed brilliantly. Lesson learned: Without the right context, any visual tweak is lipstick on a pig. Why did we get stuck polishing buttons instead of stopping sooner? It’s easy to get tunnel vision. Psychologically, it’s likely the good old sunk cost fallacy kicking in: we’d already invested time in the buttons, so stopping felt like wasting that effort, even though the data wasn’t promising. It’s just easier to keep fiddling with something familiar than to admit we need a new plan. Perhaps the simple question I should have asked myself when results stalled was: “Are we optimizing the right thing or just polishing something that fundamentally doesn’t fit the user’s primary goal here?” That alone might have saved hours. Reason #4: You’re Drowning In Unactionable Feedback We all discuss our work with colleagues. But here’s a crucial point: what kind of question do you pose to kick off that discussion? If your go-to is “What do you think?” well, that question might lead you down a rabbit hole of personal opinions rather than actionable insights. While experienced colleagues will cut through the noise, others, unsure what to evaluate, might comment on anything and everything — fonts, button colors, even when you desperately need to discuss a user flow. What matters here are two things: The question you ask, The context you give. That means clearly stating the problem, what you’ve learned, and how your idea aims to fix it. For instance: “The problem is our payment conversion rate has dropped by X%. I’ve interviewed users and found they abandon payment because they don’t understand how the total amount is calculated. My solution is to show a detailed cost breakdown. Do you think this actually solves the problem for them?” Here, you’ve stated the problem (conversion drop), shared your insight (user confusion), explained your solution (cost breakdown), and asked a direct question. It’s even better if you prepare a list of specific sub-questions. For instance: “Are all items in the cost breakdown clear?” or “Does the placement of this breakdown feel intuitive within the payment flow?” Another good habit is to keep your rough sketches and previous iterations handy. Some of your colleagues’ suggestions might be things you’ve already tried. It’s great if you can discuss them immediately to either revisit those ideas or definitively set them aside. I’m not a psychologist, but experience tells me that, psychologically, the reluctance to be this specific often stems from a fear of our solution being rejected. We tend to internalize feedback: a seemingly innocent comment like, “Have you considered other ways to organize this section?” or “Perhaps explore a different structure for this part?” can instantly morph in our minds into “You completely messed up the structure. You’re a bad designer.” Imposter syndrome, in all its glory. So, to wrap up this point, here are two recommendations: Prepare for every design discussion.A couple of focused questions will yield far more valuable input than a vague “So, what do you think?”. Actively work on separating feedback on your design from your self-worth.If a mistake is pointed out, acknowledge it, learn from it, and you’ll be less likely to repeat it. This is often easier said than done. For me, it took years of working with a psychotherapist. If you struggle with this, I sincerely wish you strength in overcoming it. Reason #5 You’re Just Tired Sometimes, the issue isn’t strategic at all — it’s fatigue. Fussing over icon corners can feel like a cozy bunker when your brain is fried. There’s a name for this: decision fatigue. Basically, your brain’s battery for hard thinking is low, so it hides out in the easy, comfy zone of pixel-pushing. A striking example comes from a New York Times article titled “Do You Suffer From Decision Fatigue?.” It described how judges deciding on release requests were far more likely to grant release early in the day (about 70% of cases) compared to late in the day (less than 10%) simply because their decision-making energy was depleted. Luckily, designers rarely hold someone’s freedom in their hands, but the example dramatically shows how fatigue can impact our judgment and productivity. What helps here: Swap tasks.Trade tickets with another designer; novelty resets your focus. Talk to another designer.If NDA permits, ask peers outside the team for a sanity check. Step away.Even a ten‑minute walk can do more than a double‑shot espresso. By the way, I came up with these ideas while walking around my office. I was lucky to work near a river, and those short walks quickly turned into a helpful habit. And one more trick that helps me snap out of detail mode early: if I catch myself making around 20 little tweaks — changing font weight, color, border radius — I just stop. Over time, it turned into a habit. I have a similar one with Instagram: by the third reel, my brain quietly asks, “Wait, weren’t we working?” Funny how that kind of nudge saves a ton of time. Four Steps I Use to Avoid Drowning In Detail Knowing these potential traps, here’s the practical process I use to stay on track: 1. Define the Core Problem & Business Goal Before anything, dig deep: what’s the actual problem we’re solving, not just the requested task or a surface-level symptom? Ask ‘why’ repeatedly. What user pain or business need are we addressing? Then, state the clear business goal: “What metric am I moving, and do we have data to prove this is the right lever?” If retention is the goal, decide whether push reminders, gamification, or personalised content is the best route. The wrong lever, or tackling a symptom instead of the cause, dooms everything downstream. 2. Choose the Mechanic (Solution Principle) Once the core problem and goal are clear, lock the solution principle or ‘mechanic’ first. Going with a game layer? Decide if it’s leaderboards, streaks, or badges. Write it down. Then move on. No UI yet. This keeps the focus high-level before diving into pixels. 3. Wireframe the Flow & Get Focused Feedback Now open Figma. Map screens, layout, and transitions. Boxes and arrows are enough. Keep the fidelity low so the discussion stays on the flow, not colour. Crucially, when you share these early wires, ask specific questions and provide clear context (as discussed in ‘Reason #4’) to get actionable feedback, not just vague opinions. 4. Polish the Visuals (Mindfully) I only let myself tweak grids, type scales, and shadows after the flow is validated. If progress stalls, or before a major polish effort, I surface the work in a design critique — again using targeted questions and clear context — instead of hiding in version 47. This ensures detailing serves the now-validated solution. Even for something as small as a single button, running these four checkpoints takes about ten minutes and saves hours of decorative dithering. Wrapping Up Next time you feel the pull to vanish into mock‑ups before the problem is nailed down, pause and ask what you might be avoiding. Yes, that can expose an uncomfortable truth. But pausing to ask what you might be avoiding — maybe the fuzzy core problem, or just asking for tough feedback — gives you the power to face the real issue head-on. It keeps the project focused on solving the right problem, not just perfecting a flawed solution. Attention to detail is a superpower when used at the right moment. Obsessing over pixels too soon, though, is a bad habit and a warning light telling us the process needs a rethink.

Big and Small Underwater Faces — 3rd Place. Trips to the Antarctic Peninsula always yield amazing encounters with leopard seals (Hydrurga leptonyx). Boldly approaching me and baring his teeth, this individual was keen to point out that this part of Antarctica was his territory. This picture was shot at dusk, resulting in the rather moody atmosphere.   Credit: Lars von Ritter Zahony (Germany) / World Ocean’s Day Get the Popular Science daily newsletter💡 Breakthroughs, discoveries, and DIY tips sent every weekday. The striking eye of a humpback whale named Sweet Girl peers at the camera. Just four days later, she would be dead, hit by a speeding boat and one of the 20,000 whales killed by ship strikes each year. Photographer Rachel Moore’s captivating image (seen below) of Sweet Girl earned top honors at the 2025 United Nations World Oceans Day Photo Competition. Wonder: Sustaining What Sustains Us — WinnerThis photo, taken in Mo’orea, French Polynesia in 2024, captures the eye of a humpback whale named Sweet Girl, just days before her tragic death. Four days after I captured this intimate moment, she was struck and killed by a fast-moving ship. Her death serves as a heartbreaking reminder of the 20,000 whales lost to ship strikes every year. We are using her story to advocate for stronger protections, petitioning for stricter speed laws around Tahiti and Mo’orea during whale season. I hope Sweet Girl’s legacy will spark real change to protect these incredible animals and prevent further senseless loss.Credit: Rachel Moore (USA) / United Nations World Oceans Day www.unworldoceansday.org Now in its twelfth year, the competition coordinated in collaboration between the UN Division for Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea, DivePhotoGuide (DPG), Oceanic Global, and  the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission of UNESCO. Each year, thousands of underwater photographers submit images that judges award prizes for across four categories: Big and Small Underwater Faces, Underwater Seascapes, Above Water Seascapes, and Wonder: Sustaining What Sustains Us. This year’s winning images include a curious leopard seal, a swarm of jellyfish, and a very grumpy looking Japanese warbonnet. Given our oceans’ perilous state, all competition participants were required to sign a charter of 14 commitments regarding ethics in photography. Underwater Seascapes — Honorable MentionWith only orcas as their natural predators, leopard seals are Antarctica’s most versatile hunters, preying on everything from fish and cephalopods to penguins and other seals. Gentoo penguins are a favored menu item, and leopard seals can be observed patrolling the waters around their colonies. For this shot, I used a split image to capture both worlds: the gentoo penguin colony in the background with the leopard seal on the hunt in the foreground.Credit: Lars von Ritter Zahony (Germany) / United Nations World Oceans Day www.unworldoceansday.org Above Water Seascapes – WinnerA serene lake cradled by arid dunes, where a gentle stream breathes life into the heart of Mother Earth’s creation: Captured from an airplane, this image reveals the powerful contrasts and hidden beauty where land and ocean meet, reminding us that the ocean is the source of all life and that everything in nature is deeply connected. The location is a remote stretch of coastline near Shark Bay, Western Australia.Credit: Leander Nardin (Austria) / United Nations World Oceans Day www.unworldoceansday.org Above Water Seascapes — 3rd PlaceParadise Harbour is one of the most beautiful places on the Antarctic Peninsula. When I visited, the sea was extremely calm, and I was lucky enough to witness a wonderfully clear reflection of the Suárez Glacier (aka Petzval Glacier) in the water. The only problem was the waves created by our speedboat, and the only way to capture the perfect reflection was to lie on the bottom of the boat while it moved towards the glacier.Credit: Andrey Nosik (Russia) / United Nations World Oceans Day www.unworldoceansday.org Underwater Seascapes — 3rd Place“La Rapadura” is a natural hidden treasure on the northern coast of Tenerife, in the Spanish territory of the Canary Islands. Only discovered in 1996, it is one of the most astonishing underwater landscapes in the world, consistently ranking among the planet’s best dive sites. These towering columns of basalt are the result of volcanic processes that occurred between 500,000 and a million years ago. The formation was created when a basaltic lava flow reached the ocean, where, upon cooling and solidifying, it contracted, creating natural structures often compared to the pipes of church organs. Located in a region where marine life has been impacted by once common illegal fishing practices, this stunning natural monument has both geological and ecological value, and scientists and underwater photographers are advocating for its protection. (Model: Yolanda Garcia)Credit: Pedro Carrillo (Spain) / United Nations World Oceans Day www.unworldoceansday.org Underwater Seascapes — WinnerThis year, I had the incredible opportunity to visit a jellyfish lake during a liveaboard trip around southern Raja Ampat, Indonesia. Being surrounded by millions of jellyfish, which have evolved to lose their stinging ability due to the absence of predators, was one of the most breathtaking experiences I’ve ever had.Credit: Dani Escayola (Spain) / United Nations World Oceans Day www.unworldoceansday.org Underwater Seascapes — 2nd PlaceThis shot captures a school of rays resting at a cleaning station in Mauritius, where strong currents once attracted them regularly. Some rays grew accustomed to divers, allowing close encounters like this. Sadly, after the severe bleaching that the reefs here suffered last year, such gatherings have become rare, and I fear I may not witness this again at the same spot.Credit: Gerald Rambert (Mauritius) / United Nations World Oceans Day www.unworldoceansday.org Wonder: Sustaining What Sustains Us — 3rd PlaceShot in Cuba’s Jardines de la Reina—a protected shark sanctuary—this image captures a Caribbean reef shark weaving through a group of silky sharks near the surface. Using a slow shutter and strobes as the shark pivoted sharply, the motion blurred into a wave-like arc across its head, lit by the golden hues of sunset. The abundance and behavior of sharks here is a living symbol of what protected oceans can look like.Credit: Steven Lopez (USA) / United Nations World Oceans Day www.unworldoceansday.org  Above Water Seascapes — 2nd PlaceNorthern gannets (Morus bassanus) soar above the dramatic cliffs of Scotland’s Hermaness National Nature Reserve, their sleek white bodies and black-tipped wings slicing through the Shetland winds. These seabirds, the largest in the North Atlantic, are renowned for their striking plunge-dives, reaching speeds up to 100 kph (60 mph) as they hunt for fish beneath the waves. The cliffs of Hermaness provide ideal nesting sites, with updrafts aiding their take-offs and landings. Each spring, thousands return to this rugged coastline, forming one of the UK’s most significant gannet colonies. It was a major challenge to take photos at the edge of these cliffs at almost 200 meters (650 feet) with the winds up to 30 kph (20 mph).Credit: Nur Tucker (UK/Turkey) / United Nations World Oceans Day www.unworldoceansday.org Above Water Seascapes — Honorable MentionA South Atlantic swell breaks on the Dungeons Reef off the Cape Peninsula, South Africa, shot while photographing a big-wave surf session in October 2017. It’s the crescendoing sounds of these breaking swells that always amazes me.Credit: Ken Findlay (South Africa) / United Nations World Oceans Day www.unworldoceansday.org Wonder: Sustaining What Sustains Us — Honorable MentionHumpback whales in their thousands migrate along the Ningaloo Reef in Western Australia every year on the way to and from their calving grounds. In four seasons of swimming with them on the reef here, this is the only encounter I’ve had like this one. This pair of huge adult whales repeatedly spy-hopped alongside us, seeking to interact with and investigate us, leaving me completely breathless. The female in the foreground was much more confident than the male behind and would constantly make close approaches, whilst the male hung back a little, still interested but shy. After more than 10 years working with wildlife in the water, this was one of the best experiences of my life.Credit: Ollie Clarke (UK) / United Nations World Oceans Day www.unworldoceansday.org Big and Small Underwater Faces — 2nd PlaceOn one of my many blackwater dives in Anilao, in the Philippines, my guide and I spotted something moving erratically at a depth of around 20 meters (65 feet), about 10 to 15 centimeters in size. We quickly realized that it was a rare blanket octopus (Tremoctopus sp.). As we approached, it opened up its beautiful blanket, revealing its multicolored mantle. I managed to take a few shots before it went on its way. I felt truly privileged to have captured this fascinating deep-sea cephalopod. Among its many unique characteristics, this species exhibits some of the most extreme sexual size-dimorphism in nature, with females weighing up to 40,000 times more than males.Credit: Giacomo Marchione (Italy) / United Nations World Oceans Day www.unworldoceansday.org Big and Small Underwater Faces – WinnerThis photo of a Japanese warbonnet (Chirolophis japonicus) was captured in the Sea of Japan, about 50 miles (80 kilometers) southwest of Vladivostok, Russia. I found the ornate fish at a depth of about 30 meters (100 feet), under the stern of a shipwreck. This species does not appear to be afraid of divers—on the contrary, it seems to enjoy the attention—and it even tried to sit on the dome port of my camera.Credit: Andrey Nosik (Russia) / United Nations World Oceans Day www.unworldoceansday.org Wonder: Sustaining What Sustains Us — 2nd PlaceA juvenile pinnate batfish (Platax pinnatus) captured with a slow shutter speed, a snooted light, and deliberate camera panning to create a sense of motion and drama. Juvenile pinnate batfish are known for their striking black bodies outlined in vibrant orange—a coloration they lose within just a few months as they mature. I encountered this restless subject in the tropical waters of Indonesia’s Lembeh Strait. Capturing this image took patience and persistence over two dives, as these active young fish constantly dart for cover in crevices, making the shot particularly challenging.Credit: Luis Arpa (Spain) / United Nations World Oceans Day www.unworldoceansday.org

Three former executives at the French video game company Ubisoft used their position to bully or sexually harass staff, leaving women terrified and feeling like pieces of meat, a French court has heard.The state prosecutor Antoine Haushalter said the trial of three senior game creators for alleged bullying, sexual harassment and, in one case, attempted sexual assault was a “turning point” for the gaming world. It is the first big trial to result from the #MeToo movement in the video games industry, and Haushalter said the case had revealed “overwhelming” evidence of harassment.In four days of hearings, female former staff members variously described being tied to a chair, forced to do handstands, subjected to constant comments about sex and their bodies, having to endure sexist and homophobic jokes, drawings of penises being stuck to computers, a manager who farted in workers’ faces or scribbled on women with marker pens, gave unsolicited shoulder massages, played pornographic films in an open-plan office, and another executive who cracked a whip near people’s heads. The three men deny all charges.Haushalter said “the world of video games and its subculture” had an element of “systemic” sexism and potential abuse. He said the #MeToo movement in the gaming industry had allowed people to speak out.“It’s not that these actions were not punished by the law before. It’s just that they were silenced, and from now on they will not be silenced,” he said.Ubisoft is a French family business that rose to become one of the biggest video game creators in the world. It has been behind several blockbusters including Assassin’s Creed, Far Cry and the children’s favourite Just Dance.The court in Bobigny, in Seine-Saint-Denis, heard that between 2010 and 2020 at Ubisoft’s offices in Montreuil, east of Paris, the three executives created an atmosphere of bullying and sexism that one member of staff likened to a “boys’ club”. One alleged victim told the court: “The sexual remarks and sexual jokes were almost daily.”Tommy François, 52, a former vice-president of editorial and creative services, is accused of sexual harassment, bullying and attempted sexual assault. He was alleged once to have tied a female member of staff to a chair with tape, pushed the chair into a lift and pressed a button at random. He was also accused of forcing one woman wearing a skirt to do handstands.“He was my superior and I was afraid of him. He made me do handstands. I did it to get it over with and get rid of him,” one woman told the court.At a 2015 office Christmas party with a Back to the Future theme, François allegedly told a member of staff that he liked her 1950s dress. He then allegedly stepped towards her to kiss her on the mouth as his colleagues restrained her by the arms and back. She shouted and broke free. François denied all allegations.Another witness told the court that during a video games fair in the US, François “grabbed me by the hair and kissed me by force”. She said no one reacted, and that when she reported it to her human resources manager she was told “don’t make a big thing of it”.The woman said that later, in a key meeting, another unnamed senior figure told staff he had seen her “snogging” François, “even though he knew it had been an assault”.She said François called her into his office to show her pictures of his naked backside on his computers and on a phone. “Once he drew a penis on my arm when I was in a video call with top management,” she said.The woman said these incidents made her feel “stupefied, humiliated and professionally discredited”.François told the court he denied all charges. He said there had been a “culture of joking around”. He said: “I never tried to harm anyone.”Serge Hascoët told the court: ‘I have never wanted to harass anyone and I don’t think I have.’ Photograph: Xavier Galiana/AFP/Getty ImagesSerge Hascoët, 59, Ubisoft’s former chief creative officer and second-in-command, was accused of bullying and sexual harassment. The court heard how at a meeting of staff on an away day he complained about a senior female employee, saying she clearly did not have enough sex and that he would “show how to calm her” by having sex with her in a meeting room in front of everyone.He was alleged to have handed a young female member of staff a tissue in which he had blown his nose, saying: “You can resell it, it’s worth gold at Ubisoft.”The court heard he made guttural noises in the office and talked about sex. Hascoët was also alleged to have bullied assistants by making them carry out personal tasks for him such as going to his home to wait for parcel deliveries.Hascoët denied all the charges. He said: “I have never wanted to harass anyone and I don’t think I have.”The former game director Guillaume Patrux, 41, is accused of sexual harassment and bullying. He was alleged to have punched walls, mimed hitting staff, cracked a whip near colleagues’ faces, threatened to carry out an office shooting and played with a cigarette lighter near workers’ faces, setting alight a man’s beard. He denied the charges.The panel of judges retired to consider their verdict, which will be handed down at a later date.

Limited-time offer: Get more than 30% off a Vox Membership. Join today to support independent journalism. Federal civil servants are supposed to enjoy robust protections against being fired or demoted for political reasons. But President Donald Trump has effectively stripped them of these protections by neutralizing the federal agencies that implement these safeguards.An agency known as the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) hears civil servants’ claims that a “government employer discriminated against them, retaliated against them for whistleblowing, violated protections for veterans, or otherwise subjected them to an unlawful adverse employment action or prohibited personnel practice,” as a federal appeals court explained in an opinion on Tuesday. But the three-member board currently lacks the quorum it needs to operate because Trump fired two of the members.Trump also fired Hampton Dellinger, who until recently served as the special counsel of the United States, a role that investigates alleged violations of federal civil service protections and brings related cases to the MSPB. Trump recently nominated Paul Ingrassia, a far-right podcaster and recent law school graduate to replace Dellinger.The upshot of these firings is that no one in the government is able to enforce laws and regulations protecting civil servants. As Dellinger noted in an interview, the morning before a federal appeals court determined that Trump could fire him, he’d “been able to get 6,000 newly hired federal employees back on the job,” and was working to get “all probationary employees put back on the job [after] their unlawful firing” by the Department of Government Efficiency and other Trump administration efforts to cull the federal workforce. These and other efforts to reinstate illegally fired federal workers are on hold, and may not resume until Trump leaves office.Which brings us to the US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit’s decision in National Association of Immigration Judges v. Owen, which proposes an innovative solution to this problem.As the Owen opinion notes, the Supreme Court has held that the MSPB process is the only process a federal worker can use if they believe they’ve been fired in violation of federal civil service laws. So if that process is shut down, the worker is out of luck.But the Fourth Circuit’s Owen opinion argues that this “conclusion can only be true…when the statute functions as Congress intended.” That is, if the MSPB and the special counsel are unable to “fulfill their roles prescribed by” federal law, then the courts should pick up the slack and start hearing cases brought by illegally fired civil servants.For procedural reasons, the Fourth Circuit’s decision will not take effect right away — the court sent the case back down to a trial judge to “conduct a factual inquiry” into whether the MSPB continues to function. And, even after that inquiry is complete, the Trump administration is likely to appeal the Fourth Circuit’s decision to the Supreme Court if it wants to keep civil service protections on ice.If the justices agree with the circuit court, however, that will close a legal loophole that has left federal civil servants unprotected by laws that are still very much on the books. And it will cure a problem that the Supreme Court bears much of the blame for creating.The “unitary executive,” or why the Supreme Court is to blame for the loss of civil service protectionsFederal law provides that Dellinger could “be removed by the President only for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office,” and members of the MSPB enjoy similar protections against being fired. Trump’s decision to fire these officials was illegal under these laws.But a federal appeals court nonetheless permitted Trump to fire Dellinger, and the Supreme Court recently backed Trump’s decision to fire the MSPB members as well. The reason is a legal theory known as the “unitary executive,” which is popular among Republican legal scholars, and especially among the six Republicans that control the Supreme Court.If you want to know all the details of this theory, I can point you to three different explainers I’ve written on the unitary executive. The short explanation is that the unitary executive theory claims that the president must have the power to fire top political appointees charged with executing federal laws – including officials who execute laws protecting civil servants from illegal firings.But the Supreme Court has never claimed that the unitary executive permits the president to fire any federal worker regardless of whether Congress has protected them or not. In a seminal opinion laying out the unitary executive theory, for example, Justice Antonin Scalia argued that the president must have the power to remove “principal officers” — high-ranking officials like Dellinger who must be nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate. Under Scalia’s approach, lower-ranking government workers may still be given some protection.The Fourth Circuit cannot override the Supreme Court’s decision to embrace the unitary executive theory. But the Owen opinion essentially tries to police the line drawn by Scalia. The Supreme Court has given Trump the power to fire some high-ranking officials, but he shouldn’t be able to use that power as a back door to eliminate job protections for all civil servants.The Fourth Circuit suggests that the federal law which simultaneously gave the MSPB exclusive authority over civil service disputes, while also protecting MSPB members from being fired for political reasons, must be read as a package. Congress, this argument goes, would not have agreed to shunt all civil service disputes to the MSPB if it had known that the Supreme Court would strip the MSPB of its independence. And so, if the MSPB loses its independence, it must also lose its exclusive authority over civil service disputes — and federal courts must regain the power to hear those cases.It remains to be seen whether this argument persuades a Republican Supreme Court — all three of the Fourth Circuit judges who decided the Owen case are Democrats, and two are Biden appointees. But the Fourth Circuit’s reasoning closely resembles the kind of inquiry that courts frequently engage in when a federal law is struck down.When a court declares a provision of federal law unconstitutional, it often needs to ask whether other parts of the law should fall along with the unconstitutional provision, an inquiry known as “severability.” Often, this severability analysis asks which hypothetical law Congress would have enacted if it had known that the one provision is invalid.The Fourth Circuit’s decision in Owen is essentially a severability opinion. It takes as a given the Supreme Court’s conclusion that laws protecting Dellinger and the MSPB members from being fired are unconstitutional, then asks which law Congress would have enacted if it had known that it could not protect MSPB members from political reprisal. The Fourth Circuit’s conclusion is that, if Congress had known that MSPB members cannot be politically independent, then it would not have given them exclusive authority over civil service disputes.If the Supreme Court permits Trump to neutralize the MSPB, that would fundamentally change how the government functionsThe idea that civil servants should be hired based on merit and insulated from political pressure is hardly new. The first law protecting civil servants, the Pendleton Civil Service Reform Act, which President Chester A. Arthur signed into law in 1883.Laws like the Pendleton Act do more than protect civil servants who, say, resist pressure to deny government services to the president’s enemies. They also make it possible for top government officials to actually do their jobs.Before the Pendleton Act, federal jobs were typically awarded as patronage — so when a Democratic administration took office, the Republicans who occupied most federal jobs would be fired and replaced by Democrats. This was obviously quite disruptive, and it made it difficult for the government to hire highly specialized workers. Why would someone go to the trouble of earning an economics degree and becoming an expert on federal monetary policy, if they knew that their job in the Treasury Department would disappear the minute their party lost an election?Meanwhile, the task of filling all of these patronage jobs overwhelmed new presidents. As Candice Millard wrote in a 2011 biography of President James A. Garfield, the last president elected before the Pendleton Act, when Garfield took office, a line of job seekers began to form outside the White House “before he even sat down to breakfast.” By the time Garfield had eaten, this line “snaked down the front walk, out the gate, and onto Pennsylvania Avenue.” Garfield was assassinated by a disgruntled job seeker, a fact that likely helped build political support for the Pendleton Act.By neutralizing the MSPB, Trump is effectively undoing nearly 150 years worth of civil service reforms, and returning the federal government to a much more primitive state. At the very least, the Fourth Circuit’s decision in Owen is likely to force the Supreme Court to ask if it really wants a century and a half of work to unravel.See More:

Every few weeks, it seems like there’s a new headline about a lawyer getting in trouble for submitting filings containing, in the words of one judge, “bogus AI-generated research.” The details vary, but the throughline is the same: an attorney turns to a large language model (LLM) like ChatGPT to help them with legal research (or worse, writing), the LLM hallucinates cases that don’t exist, and the lawyer is none the wiser until the judge or opposing counsel points out their mistake. In some cases, including an aviation lawsuit from 2023, attorneys have had to pay fines for submitting filings with AI-generated hallucinations. So why haven’t they stopped?The answer mostly comes down to time crunches, and the way AI has crept into nearly every profession. Legal research databases like LexisNexis and Westlaw have AI integrations now. For lawyers juggling big caseloads, AI can seem like an incredibly efficient assistant. Most lawyers aren’t necessarily using ChatGPT to write their filings, but they are increasingly using it and other LLMs for research. Yet many of these lawyers, like much of the public, don’t understand exactly what LLMs are or how they work. One attorney who was sanctioned in 2023 said he thought ChatGPT was a “super search engine.” It took submitting a filing with fake citations to reveal that it’s more like a random-phrase generator — one that could give you either correct information or convincingly phrased nonsense.Andrew Perlman, the dean of Suffolk University Law School, argues many lawyers are using AI tools without incident, and the ones who get caught with fake citations are outliers. “I think that what we’re seeing now — although these problems of hallucination are real, and lawyers have to take it very seriously and be careful about it — doesn’t mean that these tools don’t have enormous possible benefits and use cases for the delivery of legal services,” Perlman said. Legal databases and research systems like Westlaw are incorporating AI services.In fact, 63 percent of lawyers surveyed by Thomson Reuters in 2024 said they’ve used AI in the past, and 12 percent said they use it regularly. Respondents said they use AI to write summaries of case law and to research “case law, statutes, forms or sample language for orders.” The attorneys surveyed by Thomson Reuters see it as a time-saving tool, and half of those surveyed said “exploring the potential for implementing AI” at work is their highest priority. “The role of a good lawyer is as a ‘trusted advisor’ not as a producer of documents,” one respondent said. But as plenty of recent examples have shown, the documents produced by AI aren’t always accurate, and in some cases aren’t real at all.RelatedIn one recent high-profile case, lawyers for journalist Tim Burke, who was arrested for publishing unaired Fox News footage in 2024, submitted a motion to dismiss the case against him on First Amendment grounds. After discovering that the filing included “significant misrepresentations and misquotations of supposedly pertinent case law and history,” Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle, of Florida’s middle district, ordered the motion to be stricken from the case record. Mizelle found nine hallucinations in the document, according to the Tampa Bay Times.Mizelle ultimately let Burke’s lawyers, Mark Rasch and Michael Maddux, submit a new motion. In a separate filing explaining the mistakes, Rasch wrote that he “assumes sole and exclusive responsibility for these errors.” Rasch said he used the “deep research” feature on ChatGPT pro, which The Verge has previously tested with mixed results, as well as Westlaw’s AI feature.Rasch isn’t alone. Lawyers representing Anthropic recently admitted to using the company’s Claude AI to help write an expert witness declaration submitted as part of the copyright infringement lawsuit brought against Anthropic by music publishers. That filing included a citation with an “inaccurate title and inaccurate authors.” Last December, misinformation expert Jeff Hancock admitted he used ChatGPT to help organize citations in a declaration he submitted in support of a Minnesota law regulating deepfake use. Hancock’s filing included “two citation errors, popularly referred to as ‘hallucinations,’” and incorrectly listed authors for another citation. These documents do, in fact, matter — at least in the eyes of judges. In a recent case, a California judge presiding over a case against State Farm was initially swayed by arguments in a brief, only to find that the case law cited was completely made up. “I read their brief, was persuaded (or at least intrigued) by the authorities that they cited, and looked up the decisions to learn more about them – only to find that they didn’t exist,” Judge Michael Wilner wrote.Perlman said there are several less risky ways lawyers use generative AI in their work, including finding information in large tranches of discovery documents, reviewing briefs or filings, and brainstorming possible arguments or possible opposing views. “I think in almost every task, there are ways in which generative AI can be useful — not a substitute for lawyers’ judgment, not a substitute for the expertise that lawyers bring to the table, but in order to supplement what lawyers do and enable them to do their work better, faster, and cheaper,” Perlman said.But like anyone using AI tools, lawyers who rely on them to help with legal research and writing need to be careful to check the work they produce, Perlman said. Part of the problem is that attorneys often find themselves short on time — an issue he says existed before LLMs came into the picture. “Even before the emergence of generative AI, lawyers would file documents with citations that didn’t really address the issue that they claimed to be addressing,” Perlman said. “It was just a different kind of problem. Sometimes when lawyers are rushed, they insert citations, they don’t properly check them; they don’t really see if the case has been overturned or overruled.” (That said, the cases do at least typically exist.)Another, more insidious problem is the fact that attorneys — like others who use LLMs to help with research and writing — are too trusting of what AI produces. “I think many people are lulled into a sense of comfort with the output, because it appears at first glance to be so well crafted,” Perlman said.Alexander Kolodin, an election lawyer and Republican state representative in Arizona, said he treats ChatGPT as a junior-level associate. He’s also used ChatGPT to help write legislation. In 2024, he included AI text in part of a bill on deepfakes, having the LLM provide the “baseline definition” of what deepfakes are and then “I, the human, added in the protections for human rights, things like that it excludes comedy, satire, criticism, artistic expression, that kind of stuff,” Kolodin told The Guardian at the time. Kolodin said he “may have” discussed his use of ChatGPT with the bill’s main Democratic cosponsor but otherwise wanted it to be “an Easter egg” in the bill. The bill passed into law. Kolodin — who was sanctioned by the Arizona State Bar in 2020 for his involvement in lawsuits challenging the result of the 2020 election — has also used ChatGPT to write first drafts of amendments, and told The Verge he uses it for legal research as well. To avoid the hallucination problem, he said, he just checks the citations to make sure they’re real.“You don’t just typically send out a junior associate’s work product without checking the citations,” said Kolodin. “It’s not just machines that hallucinate; a junior associate could read the case wrong, it doesn’t really stand for the proposition cited anyway, whatever. You still have to cite-check it, but you have to do that with an associate anyway, unless they were pretty experienced.”Kolodin said he uses both ChatGPT’s pro “deep research” tool and the LexisNexis AI tool. Like Westlaw, LexisNexis is a legal research tool primarily used by attorneys. Kolodin said that in his experience, it has a higher hallucination rate than ChatGPT, which he says has “gone down substantially over the past year.” AI use among lawyers has become so prevalent that in 2024, the American Bar Association issued its first guidance on attorneys’ use of LLMs and other AI tools. Lawyers who use AI tools “have a duty of competence, including maintaining relevant technological competence, which requires an understanding of the evolving nature” of generative AI, the opinion reads. The guidance advises lawyers to “acquire a general understanding of the benefits and risks of the GAI tools” they use — or, in other words, to not assume that an LLM is a “super search engine.” Attorneys should also weigh the confidentiality risks of inputting information relating to their cases into LLMs and consider whether to tell their clients about their use of LLMs and other AI tools, it states.Perlman is bullish on lawyers’ use of AI. “I do think that generative AI is going to be the most impactful technology the legal profession has ever seen and that lawyers will be expected to use these tools in the future,” he said. “I think that at some point, we will stop worrying about the competence of lawyers who use these tools and start worrying about the competence of lawyers who don’t.”Others, including one of the judges who sanctioned lawyers for submitting a filing full of AI-generated hallucinations, are more skeptical. “Even with recent advances,” Wilner wrote, “no reasonably competent attorney should out-source research and writing to this technology — particularly without any attempt to verify the accuracy of that material.”See More:

Apple — and almost everybody else — has gotten a slight reprieve as a US court yesterday set aside the Trump tariff tax. But conflict and confusion continue to batter global trade, and while the news will provide a glimmer of relief, it will probably be short-lived. There’s always another dead cat to throw into the flames. Three judges from the US Court of International Trade found that the US International Emergency Economic Powers Act, which the Trump administration invoked to justify the imposition of these tariffs, does not give the president the authority to levy these taxes on trade. “The court does not read IEEPA to confer such unbounded authority and sets aside the challenged tariffs imposed thereunder,” they wrote. The judgement does not impact the 25% “trafficking tariffs” imposed on Mexican and Canadian products and does not prevent the 20% trafficking tariff in place on Chinese goods. It does, however, end the “worldwide and retaliatory” 10-50% tariffs the administration threw at 57 countries. A coalition of small businesses took the case to court, arguing that only Congress has the authority to levy tariffs under the law used by the president’s office. They seem to have prevailed in the argument — at least, so far. It is interesting to note that the administration wanted all the tariff-related lawsuits moved to this particular court, as it felt it would receptive to the administration’s arguments.  This turned out to be an error. What is an emergency? Responding, a White House statement from spokesperson Kush Desai maintained the need for these tariffs, calling US trade deficits a “national emergency that has decimated American communities, left our workers behind and weakened our defense industrial base — facts that the court did not dispute.”  But can a trade in cheap consumer goods be seen as an unusual threat after it has been part of US culture for decades? Not according to the US Court of International Trade. The judges say the trade deficit does not meet the Nixon-era International Emergency Economic Powers Act requirement that an emergency can only be triggered by an “unusual and extraordinary threat.”  The journey is by no means over, of course. With the president recently threatening additional tariffs on iPhones made in India (“I have a bit of a problem with my friend, Tim Cook”), the reprieve may be brief.  Desai’s statement said “unelected judges” are not the right people to decide how to handle what he calls a national emergency. “The administration is committed to using every lever of executive power to address this crisis and restore American greatness.”  It seems likely to end at the Supreme Court, even while the administration argues that it should not be bound by the checks and balances that still remain under the US Constitution. For now, an appeal has been lodged with the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington.  Where is the off-ramp? Apple, the world’s biggest consumer electronics company, which contributes a fortune to the US treasury and employs tens of thousands of Americans, will likely be relieved the tariffs have been set aside.  The reprieve implies that US consumers won’t need to pay more for their iPhones for a little longer yet and better reflects the reality that even if Apple were to shift iPhone manufacturing to the US, doing so would take years, cost billions, require engineering skills in quantities that do not yet exist in the US, would involve automation rather than large numbers of new jobs, and would be hampered by the availability of components and materials.  For the time being, at least, the judgment is a significant obstacle to the tariff taxes, albeit one that casts another spanner in the works for ongoing international trade talks. However, there is still scope for the administration to impose sector-specific taxes. All the same, “Tim Apple” will be acutely aware that the future will not look like the past, and the company’s $500 billion investment in the US will be part of the company’s future approach to manufacturing and trade. It suggests that while moving iPhone manufacturing to the US may be impractical, moving manufacture of some components and hardware may make sense. It is possible that as Apple and the US administration continue to negotiate, they may yet identify a road that enables both to declare some form of victory. You can follow me on social media! Join me on BlueSky,  LinkedIn, and Mastodon.

Posted on : May 28, 2025 By Tech World Times Business  Rate this post Starting a new business is exciting. But money is often the first big hurdle. Without funds, it’s hard to build products, hire staff, or run ads. That’s where Startup Funding becomes important. It helps entrepreneurs turn ideas into real businesses. In this article, we share the top 10 startup funding sources for new entrepreneurs in 2025. 1. Personal Savings Most founders start with their own money. It’s simple and quick. You don’t owe anyone else. Using savings shows you believe in your idea. But only use what you can afford to lose. Avoid risking your rent or emergency funds. 2. Friends and Family This is a common early funding source. People who know and trust you may help. They might give you money or offer loans. But always keep it professional. Write down terms and make repayment plans clear. It avoids confusion and protects relationships. 3. Angel Investors Angel investors are wealthy individuals who support startups. They often invest in early stages of business. They bring both money and advice. They usually take equity in return. Search platforms like AngelList or attend startup events to meet them. 4. Venture Capital (VC) VC firms invest big money in fast-growing startups. They look for high returns and innovation. VC funding is best for tech or scalable startups. They take equity and sometimes want a say. It’s competitive, so prepare strong pitch decks. 5. Business Incubators and Accelerators These programs help startups grow fast. They offer funding, training, and mentorship. Some popular examples are Y Combinator and Techstars. They often end with demo days to attract investors. You may give up a small equity share. 6. Crowdfunding Crowdfunding is when many people fund your idea online. Sites like Kickstarter and Indiegogo make this easy. You offer early access or rewards instead of equity. It works well for products people can see. Be sure to promote your campaign heavily. 7. Bank Loans Banks offer loans for startups and small businesses. They usually require a credit check and a business plan. Interest rates vary. Some banks need collateral. If approved, loans give quick access to funds. This option doesn’t dilute your ownership. 8. Government Grants Many governments support small businesses. They offer grants for innovation, research, or job creation. Grants don’t require repayment or equity. But they involve paperwork and clear guidelines. Search local government or small business websites. 9. Business Competitions Pitch competitions can offer funding and exposure. Entrepreneurs present their ideas to a panel of judges. Winners receive cash prizes or investment offers. Even if you don’t win, you gain feedback. Search for startup contests in your city or industry. 10. Corporate Venture Funds Big companies often invest in small startups. They want access to new ideas and technologies. These corporate funds work like VCs. But they may also offer partnerships or clients. Look for companies related to your industry. Tips for Choosing the Right Source Choosing the right Startup Funding source is important. Think about your business stage and goals. Do you need quick cash or long-term help? Can you give up equity or not? Always read the terms and plan your pitch. How to Get Ready for Funding Before applying for funding, get prepared. Make a clear business plan and pitch deck. Know your numbers: costs, sales, profits, and growth plans. Show why your idea is different or better. Practice your pitch until you feel confident. Pros and Cons of Funding Options Each Startup Funding source has pros and cons. Here’s a quick comparison for easy understanding: SourceProsConsSavingsFull controlRisk of personal lossFriends/FamilyEasy accessCan hurt relationshipsAngelsSmart moneyGive up equityVCsLarge fundsHigh pressure to growIncubatorsSupportiveEquity shareCrowdfundingNo equity neededNeeds marketingBank LoansKeep full ownershipInterest, credit checksGrantsFree moneySlow and competitiveCompetitionsWin fundingNo guaranteeCorporate FundsBig supportMight want exclusivity Choose what fits your situation best. Final Thoughts Finding Startup Funding takes effort, but it’s possible. Start small, and build trust with each step. Many successful companies began with tiny investments. You don’t need millions to get started. Pick the right funding source and stay focused. With patience and planning, your startup can grow. Keep learning, keep networking, and never stop pitching. Your big break might be one meeting away. Tech World TimesTech World Times (TWT), a global collective focusing on the latest tech news and trends in blockchain, Fintech, Development & Testing, AI and Startups. If you are looking for the guest post then contact at techworldtimes@gmail.com

An open international contest is being held to retrofit and upgrade the Brutalist-style Prior shopping centre in Most, Czechia (Deadline: 27 June) The two-stage competition – organised by the Centre for Central European Architecture (CCEA MOBA) on behalf of the City of Most – will select a design team to upgrade the 1973 complex located on a prominent site in the centre of the planned 1970s coal-mining settlement. The £750,000 (22.2 million CZK) ‘SuperMost – SuperPrior’ project will transform the landmark building – which is the centrepiece of a vast planned city designed by Václav Krejčí and constructed following the demolition of historic Most to make way for a lignite mine – into a new community and cultural hub for the settlement. Competition site: SuperPrior, Most According to the brief: ‘The city of Most is announcing its first competitive dialogue, SuperMost – SuperPrior. Prior, opened in 1976 as the city's main shopping centre, has the potential to become a community and cultural hub. ‘The aim is to design a new future for the former department store – a place for new functions, sharing, and meeting. The current building is to be reintegrated into the life of the city and offer meaningful use.’ Founded in mid-13th century, Most is a historic settlement of 63,000 inhabitants located in the Ústí nad Labem Region of Czechia close to Germany’s southern border. Most was demolished from 1965 to 1985 to make way for a lignite mine with a new planned settlement created in the Brutalist style featuring housing estates, a shopping centre, a culture centre, planetarium and an office skyscraper. The latest contest also comes shortly after CCEA MOBA launched a contest to retrofit and upgrade the former Palace Hotel in Ostrava. The ‘SuperMost – SuperPrior’ contest is the first part of a bigger programme of renewal drawn up by CCEA MOBA and the City of Most which will include an artistic intervention on the city hall and wider city centre renewal initiative. Competition site: SuperPrior, Most The project focuses on transforming the shopping centre into a new venue for film screenings and a gastronomy marketplace addressing the lack of similar facilities in the local area. Judges will include Marie Kašparová, director of Kultura Praha 3; Gerry Schwyter, architect at EM2N in Zurich; Marina Kounavi, founder of ANAGRAM in Athens; and the mayor of Most, Marek Hrvol. The contest language is Czech and English. Submissions will be judged on architectural quality including social-cultural value, aesthetic and functional quality; and technological solution comprising material and structural choices, environmental responsibility and energy performance. The overall winner will receive a £23,540 (CZK 700,000) prize while a second prize of £20,180 (CZK 600,000), third prize of £13,450 (CZK 400,000) and a fourth and fifth prize each worth £8,410 (CZK 250,000) will also be awarded. How to apply Deadline: 2pm local time, 27 June Competition funding source: Not supplied Project funding source: Not supplied Owner of site(s): Not supplied Contact details: karin@cceamoba.czVisit the competition website for more information

New Contest! Download a free asset pack and create a render of a 3D Magical scene. I hope you will join this super fun contest. It’s a great way to practice some new skills. We’re doing “3D Magical” as the theme. If you look up “Magical 3D” on Behance, Pinterest, or Google, you’ll get some inspiration. I put an image below of some that I pinned just to get your creative juices flowing. You could do something totally different in the “Magical” or fantasy realm if you want, though. By joining this contest, you’ll get a free mini-pack of assets to use for your design elements, you’ll get some great practice, and you can use the result on your social media or reel. The winners will get some rad prizes too. I hope you enjoy the contest, I think it will be TONS of fun! Btw, make it a challenge to yourself. Try a new program. Try a new app. Try a new technique you have never done. Find a way to push yourself out of your comfort zone and really get some new skills with this fun challenge. That’s the whole point of it! Prizes First Place: VDB Bundle from The Pixel Lab Second Place: 10 Free Products from The Pixel Lab Third Place: 5 Free Products from The Pixel LabRules 1. Download the mini-pack with 8 3D Assets: Portal, Wispy Smoke, Plume, Stage Smoke, Electricity, Smoke, and 2 Power Streams. (FYI, The full products on our site have complete animation sequences, but for this contest, I’m giving you one of the frames from the animations for free).2. Make sure to use at least some of the assets in your render. You can use as many of them as you want; it’s up to you! These are either Alembic files or VDB files. If you don’t know how to use them, shoot me an e-mail and I can help you out. 3. Create a 3D Magical design. It could be anything. Search Behance for Magical 3D to get tons of inspiration! 4. Make a still render and send it to joren@thepixellab.net 5. The deadline will be July 31, 2025. Our internal team of judges will look at all of the entries. We will pick the top three entries based on creativity/originality/design, and we will announce the winners in early August 2025. We will fulfill the prizes shortly after. Note 1: This artwork must be created for the contest. It cannot be a previous piece you have already created. No AI is allowed. I’m not anti AI, but the goal of this contest is to learn texturing, lighting, design, layout, and more. Note 2: If you want to purchase any of our products, and you end up winning, we will refund your purchase, so don’t worry about buying them if you want to in the next month. Ready to get started? Download the pack and get going! Let me know if you have any questions! Download Free Mini-Pack of 3D Assets