A new study reveals the key lies not in the production of a regrowth molecule, but in that molecule's controlled destruction. The discovery could inspire future regenerative medicine.

Escher est un "mathémagicien" qui a réalisé des œuvres réalistes et pourtant physiquement irréalisables, mêlant art et mathématiques. L’article Maurits Escher, l’illusion de l’impossible est apparu en premier sur Graphéine - Agence de com

Perhaps the oldest, most pernicious form of human bias is that of men toward women. It often started at the moment of birth. In ancient Athens, at a public ceremony called the amphidromia, fathers would inspect a newborn and decide whether it would be part of the family, or be cast away. One often socially acceptable reason for abandoning the baby: It was a girl. Female infanticide has been distressingly common in many societies — and its practice is not just ancient history. In 1990, the Nobel Prize-winning economist Amartya Sen looked at birth ratios in Asia, North Africa, and China and calculated that more than 100 million women were essentially “missing” — meaning that, based on the normal ratio of boys to girls at birth and the longevity of both genders, there was a huge missing number of girls who should have been born, but weren’t. Sen’s estimate came before the truly widespread adoption of ultrasound tests that could determine the sex of a fetus in utero — which actually made the problem worse, leading to a wave of sex-selective abortions. These were especially common in countries like India and China; the latter’s one-child policy and old biases made families desperate for their one child to be a boy. The Economist has estimated that since 1980 alone, there have been approximately 50 million fewer girls born worldwide than would naturally be expected, which almost certainly means that roughly that nearly all of those girls were aborted for no other reason than their sex. The preference for boys was a bias that killed in mass numbers.But in one of the most important social shifts of our time, that bias is changing. In a great cover story earlier this month, The Economist reported that the number of annual excess male births has fallen from a peak of 1.7 million in 2000 to around 200,000, which puts it back within the biologically standard birth ratio of 105 boys for every 100 girls. Countries that once had highly skewed sex ratios — like South Korea, which saw almost 116 boys born for every 100 girls in 1990 — now have normal or near-normal ratios. Altogether, The Economist estimated that the decline in sex preference at birth in the past 25 years has saved the equivalent of 7 million girls. That’s comparable to the number of lives saved by anti-smoking efforts in the US. So how, exactly, have we overcome a prejudice that seemed so embedded in human society?Success in school and the workplaceFor one, we have relaxed discrimination against girls and women in other ways — in school and in the workplace. With fewer limits, girls are outperforming boys in the classroom. In the most recent international PISA tests, considered the gold standard for evaluating student performance around the world, 15-year-old girls beat their male counterparts in reading in 79 out of 81 participating countries or economies, while the historic male advantage in math scores has fallen to single digits. Girls are also dominating in higher education, with 113 female students at that level for every 100 male students. While women continue to earn less than men, the gender pay gap has been shrinking, and in a number of urban areas in the US, young women have actually been outearning young men. Government policies have helped accelerate that shift, in part because they have come to recognize the serious social problems that eventually result from decades of anti-girl discrimination. In countries like South Korea and China, which have long had some of the most skewed gender ratios at birth, governments have cracked down on technologies that enable sex-selective abortion. In India, where female infanticide and neglect have been particularly horrific, slogans like “Save the Daughter, Educate the Daughter” have helped change opinions. A changing preferenceThe shift is being seen not just in birth sex ratios, but in opinion polls — and in the actions of would-be parents.Between 1983 and 2003, The Economist reported, the proportion of South Korean women who said it was “necessary” to have a son fell from 48 percent to 6 percent, while nearly half of women now say they want daughters. In Japan, the shift has gone even further — as far back as 2002, 75 percent of couples who wanted only one child said they hoped for a daughter.In the US, which allows sex selection for couples doing in-vitro fertilization, there is growing evidence that would-be parents prefer girls, as do potential adoptive parents. While in the past, parents who had a girl first were more likely to keep trying to have children in an effort to have a boy, the opposite is now true — couples who have a girl first are less likely to keep trying. A more equal futureThere’s still more progress to be made. In northwest of India, for instance, birth ratios that overly skew toward boys are still the norm. In regions of sub-Saharan Africa, birth sex ratios may be relatively normal, but post-birth discrimination in the form of poorer nutrition and worse medical care still lingers. And course, women around the world are still subject to unacceptable levels of violence and discrimination from men.And some of the reasons for this shift may not be as high-minded as we’d like to think. Boys around the world are struggling in the modern era. They increasingly underperform in education, are more likely to be involved in violent crime, and in general, are failing to launch into adulthood. In the US, 20 percent of American men between 25 and 34 still live with their parents, compared to 15 percent of similarly aged women. It also seems to be the case that at least some of the increasing preference for girls is rooted in sexist stereotypes. Parents around the world may now prefer girls partly because they see them as more likely to take care of them in their old age — meaning a different kind of bias against women, that they are more natural caretakers, may be paradoxically driving the decline in prejudice against girls at birth.But make no mistake — the decline of boy preference is a clear mark of social progress, one measured in millions of girls’ lives saved. And maybe one Father’s Day, not too long from now, we’ll reach the point where daughters and sons are simply children: equally loved and equally welcomed.A version of this story originally appeared in the Good News newsletter. Sign up here!See More:

Ethan Hunt and the IMF team race against time to find a rogue artificial intelligence (why is AI always the bad guy now if films? ) that can destroy mankind. AI, IMF & VFX: A Mission Worth Rendering In the latest episode of The VFXShow podcast, hosts Matt Wallin, Jason Diamond, and Mike Seymour reunite to dissect the spectacle, story, and seamless visual effects of Mission: Impossible – The Final Reckoning. As the eighth entry in the franchise, this chapter serves as a high-stakes, high-altitude crescendo to Tom Cruise’s nearly 30-year run as Ethan Hunt,  the relentless agent of the Impossible Mission Force. Cruise Control: When Practical Meets Pixel While the narrative revolves around the existential threat of a rogue AI known as The Entity, the real heart of the film lies in its bold commitment to visceral, real-world action. The VFX team discusses how Cruise’s ongoing devotion to doing his own death-defying stunts, from leaping between bi-planes to diving into the wreckage of a sunken submarine,  paradoxically increases the importance of invisible VFX. From seamless digital stitching to background replacements and subtle physics enhancements, the effects work had to serve the story without ever betraying the sense of raw, in-camera danger. Matt, Jason, and Mike explore how VFX in this film plays a critical supporting role, cleaning up stunts, compositing dangerous sequences, and selling the illusion of globe-spanning chaos. Whether it’s simulating the collapse of a Cold War-era submarine, managing intricate water dynamics in Ethan’s deep-sea dive, or integrating AI-driven visualisations of nuclear catastrophe, the film leans heavily on sophisticated post work to make Cruise’s practical stunts feel even more grounded and believable. The team also reflects on the thematic evolution of the franchise. While the plot may twist through layers of espionage, betrayal, and digital apocalypse, including face-offs with Gabriel, doomsday cults, and geopolitical brinkmanship,  it is not the team’s favourite MI film. And yet, they note, even as the story veers into sci-fi territory with sentient algorithms and bunker-bound AI traps, the VFX never overshadows the tactile performance at the film’s centre. Falling, Flying, Faking It Beautifully For fans of the franchise, visual effects, or just adrenaline-fueled cinema, this episode offers a thoughtful cinematic critique on how modern VFX artistry and old-school stuntwork can coexist to save a film that has lost its driving narrative direction. This week in our lineup is (or are they really??) Matt Wallin *            @mattwallin    www.mattwallin.com Follow Matt on Mastodon: @[email protected] Jason Diamond  @jasondiamond           www.thediamondbros.com Mike Seymour   @mikeseymour             www.fxguide.com. + @mikeseymour Special thanks to Matt Wallin for the editing & production of the show with help from Jim Shen.

Architizer’s Vision Awards are back! The global awards program honors the world’s best architectural concepts, ideas and imagery. Submit your work ahead of the Final Entry Deadline on July 11th! Behind the term “paper architecture” hides a strange paradox: the radical act of building without, well, building. Paper architecture is usually associated with speculative design projects, presented in the form of drawings, which can also be considered art pieces. However, even though it is often dismissed as a mere utopian or academic exercise, paper architecture has historically served as a powerful form of protest, advocating against political regimes, architectural orthodoxy or cultural stagnation. Unbound by real-world limitations such as materials, regulations and budgets, paper architects are free to focus on the messages behind their designs rather than constantly striving for their implementation. In parallel, due to its subtleness, paper architecture has become a platform that enables radical commentary via a rather “safe” medium. Instead of relying on more traditional forms of protest (such as strikes or marches) this powerful visual language, combined with scrupulous aesthetics and imagination can start a more formidable “behind-the-scenes rebellion”. Unearthing Nostalgia by Bruno Xavier & Michelle Ashley Ovanessians, A+ Vision Awards, 2023 Perhaps the most well-known paper architects, Archigram was a radical British collective that was formed in the 1960s in London. Their work Walking City or Plug-In City showcased visions of a playful, technologically driven architecture that deeply contrasted and, by extent, protested against the rigid regime of post-war modernism and its extensive bureaucracy. This pop-art-style architecture served as a powerful critique towards the saturated idea of functional monotony. Additionally, the Russian architect, artist, and curator, Yuri Avvakumuv introduced the term “paper architecture” within the restrictive cultural and political climate of late Soviet Russia (1984). Having to deal with heavy censorship, Avvakumuv turned to competitions and speculative drawings in an attempt resist that dominance of totalitarian architecture. Poetic, deeply allegorical and oftentimes ironic architectural renderings, critiqued the bureaucratic sterility of Soviet planning and the state-mandated architectural principles architects had to follow. Consequently, this profound demonstration of un-built architecture within the specific setting, turned into a collective cultural wave that advocated artistic autonomy and expression for the built environment. Klothos’ Loom of Memories by Ioana Alexandra Enache, A+ Vision Awards, 2023 The Amerian architect Lebbeus Woods was also one of the most intellectually intense practitioners of paper architecture, whose work touches upon global issues on war zones and urban trauma. His imaginative, post-apocalyptic cities opened up discussions for rebuilding after destruction. Works such as War and Architecture and Underground Berlin, albeit “dystopic”, acted as moral propositions, exploring potential reconstructions that would “heal” these cities. Through his drawings, he rigorously investigated and examined scenarios of ethical rebuilding, refusing to comply to the principles of popular commerce, and instead creating a new architectural practice of political resistance. Finally, operating within a very male-dominated world, Zaha Hadid’s earlier work — particularly on Malevich — served as a protesting tool on multiple levels. Influenced by Suprematist aesthetics, her bold, dynamic compositions stood against the formal conservatism of architectural ideas, where the design must always yield to gravity and function. In parallel, her considerable influence and dominance on the field challenged long-standing norms and served as a powerful counter-narrative against the gender biases that sidelined women in design. Ultimately, her images – part blueprints, part paintings – not only proved that architecture could be unapologetically visionary and abstract but also that materializing it is not as impossible as one would think. (Your) My Bedroom by Daniel Wing-Hou Ho, A+ Vision Awards, 2023 Even though paper architecture began as a medium of rebellion against architectural convention in the mid-20th century, it remains, until today, a vital tool for activism and social justice. Operating in the digital age, social media and digital platforms have amplified its reach, also having given it different visual forms such as digital collages, speculative renders, gifs, reels and interactive visual narratives. What was once a flyer, a journal or a newspaper extract, can now be found in open-source repositories, standing against authoritarianism, climate inaction, political violence and systemic inequality. Groups such as Forensic Architecture (Goldsmiths, University of London)  carry out multidisciplinary research, investigating cases of state violence and violations of human rights through rigorous mapping and speculative visualization. Additionally, competitions such as the eVolo Skyscraper or platforms like ArchOutLoud and Design Earth offer opportunities and space for architects to tackle environmental concerns and dramatize the urgency of inaction. Imaginative floating habitats, food cities, biodegradable megastructures etc. instigate debates and conversations through the form of environmental storytelling. The Stamper Battery by By William du Toit, A+ Vision Awards, 2023 Despite being often condemned as “unbuildable”, “impractical” or even “escapist,” paper architecture acts as a counterweight to the discipline’s increasing instrumentalization as merely a functional or commercial enterprise. In architecture schools it is used as a prompt for “thinking differently” and a tool for “critiquing without compromise”. Above all however, paper architecture matters because it keeps architecture ethically alive. It reminds architects to ask the uncomfortable questions: how should we design for environmental sustainability, migrancy or social equality, instead of focusing on profit, convenience and spectacle? Similar to a moral compass or speculative mirror, unbuilt visions can trigger political, social and environmental turns that reshape not just how we build, but why we build at all. Architizer’s Vision Awards are back! The global awards program honors the world’s best architectural concepts, ideas and imagery. Submit your work ahead of the Final Entry Deadline on July 11th! Featured Image: Into the Void: Fragmented Time, Space, Memory, and Decay in Hiroshima by Victoria Wong, A+ Vision Awards 2023 The post Paper Architecture: From Soviet Subversion to Zaha’s Suprematism appeared first on Journal.

Inside Apple’s high-gloss standoff with AI ambition and the uncanny choreography of WWDC 2025There was a time when watching an Apple keynote — like Steve Jobs introducing the iPhone in 2007, the masterclass of all masterclasses in product launching — felt like watching a tightrope act. There was suspense. Live demos happened — sometimes they failed, and when they didn’t, the applause was real, not piped through a Dolby mix.These days, that tension is gone. Since 2020, in the wake of the pandemic, Apple events have become pre-recorded masterworks: drone shots sweeping over Apple Park, transitions smoother than a Pixar short, and executives delivering their lines like odd, IRL spatial personas. They move like human renderings: poised, confident, and just robotic enough to raise a brow. The kind of people who, if encountered in real life, would probably light up half a dozen red flags before a handshake is even offered. A case in point: the official “Liquid Glass” UI demo — it’s visually stunning, yes, but also uncanny, like a concept reel that forgot it needed to ship.https://medium.com/media/fcb3b16cc42621ba32153aff80ea1805/hrefAnd that’s the paradox. Not only has Apple trimmed down the content of WWDC, it’s also polished the delivery into something almost inhumanly controlled. Every keynote beat feels engineered to avoid risk, reduce friction, and glide past doubt. But in doing so, something vital slips away: the tension, the spontaneity, the sense that the future is being made, not just performed.Just one year earlier, WWDC 2024 opened with a cinematic cold open “somewhere over California”:https://medium.com/media/f97f45387353363264d99c341d4571b0/hrefPhil Schiller piloting an Apple-branded plane, iPod in hand, muttering “I’m getting too old for this stuff.” A perfect mix of Lethal Weapon camp and a winking message that yes, Classic-Apple was still at the controls — literally — flying its senior leadership straight toward Cupertino. Out the hatch, like high-altitude paratroopers of optimism, leapt the entire exec team, with Craig Federighi, always the go-to for Apple’s auto-ironic set pieces, leading the charge, donning a helmet literally resembling his own legendary mane. It was peak-bold, bizarre, and unmistakably Apple. That intro now reads like the final act of full-throttle confidence.This year’s WWDC offered a particularly crisp contrast. Aside from the new intro — which features Craig Federighi drifting an F1-style race car across the inner rooftop ring of Apple Park as a “therapy session”, a not-so-subtle nod to the upcoming Formula 1 blockbuster but also to the accountability for the failure to deliver the system-wide AI on time — WWDC 2025 pulled back dramatically. The new “Apple Intelligence” was introduced in a keynote with zero stumbles, zero awkward transitions, and visuals so pristine they could have been rendered on a Vision Pro. Not only had the scope of WWDC been trimmed down to safer talking points, but even the tone had shifted — less like a tech summit, more like a handsomely lit containment-mode seminar. And that, perhaps, was the problem. The presentation wasn’t a reveal — it was a performance. And performances can be edited in post. Demos can’t.So when Apple in march 2025 quietly admitted, for the first time, in a formal press release addressed to reporters like John Gruber, that the personalized Siri and system-wide AI features would be delayed — the reaction wasn’t outrage. It was something subtler: disillusionment. Gruber’s response cracked the façade wide open. His post opened a slow but persistent wave of unease, rippling through developer Slack channels and private comment threads alike. John Gruber’s reaction, published under the headline “Something is rotten in the State of Cupertino”, was devastating. His critique opened the floodgates to a wave of murmurs and public unease among developers and insiders, many of whom had begun to question what was really happening at the helm of key divisions central to Apple’s future.Many still believe Apple is the only company truly capable of pulling off hardware-software integrated AI at scale. But there’s a sense that the company is now operating in damage-control mode. The delay didn’t just push back a feature — it disrupted the entire strategic arc of WWDC 2025. What could have been a milestone in system-level AI became a cautious sidestep, repackaged through visual polish and feature tweaks. The result: a presentation focused on UI refinements and safe bets, far removed from the sweeping revolution that had been teased as the main selling point for promoting the iPhone 16 launch, “Built for Apple Intelligence”.That tension surfaced during Joanna Stern’s recent live interview with Craig Federighi and Greg Joswiak. These are two of Apple’s most media-savvy execs, and yet, in a setting where questions weren’t scripted, you could see the seams. Their usual fluency gave way to something stiffer. More careful. Less certain. And even the absences speak volumes: for the first time in a decade, no one from Apple’s top team joined John Gruber’s Talk Show at WWDC. It wasn’t a scheduling fluke — nor a petty retaliation for Gruber’s damning March article. It was a retreat — one that Stratechery’s Ben Thompson described as exactly that: a strategic fallback, not a brave reset.Meanwhile, the keynote narrative quietly shifted from AI ambition to UI innovation: new visual effects, tighter integration, call screening. Credit here goes to Alan Dye — Apple VP of Human Interface Design and one of the last remaining members of Jony Ive’s inner circle not yet absorbed into LoveFrom — whose long-arc work on interface aesthetics, from the early stages of the Dynamic Island onward, is finally starting to click into place. This is classic Apple: refinement as substance, design as coherence. But it was meant to be the cherry on top of a much deeper AI-system transformation — not the whole sundae. All useful. All safe. And yet, the thing that Apple could uniquely deliver — a seamless, deeply integrated, user-controlled and privacy-safe Apple Intelligence — is now the thing it seems most reluctant to show.There is no doubt the groundwork has been laid. And to Apple’s credit, Jason Snell notes that the company is shifting gears, scaling ambitions to something that feels more tangible. But in scaling back the risk, something else has been scaled back too: the willingness to look your audience of stakeholders, developers and users live, in the eye, and show the future for how you have carefully crafted it and how you can put it in the market immediately, or in mere weeks. Showing things as they are, or as they will be very soon. Rehearsed, yes, but never faked.Even James Dyson’s live demo of a new vacuum showed more courage. No camera cuts. No soft lighting. Just a human being, showing a thing. It might have sucked, literally or figuratively. But it didn’t. And it stuck. That’s what feels missing in Cupertino.Some have started using the term glasslighting — a coined pun blending Apple’s signature glassy aesthetics with the soft manipulations of marketing, like a gentle fog of polished perfection that leaves expectations quietly disoriented. It’s not deception. It’s damage control. But that instinct, understandable as it is, doesn’t build momentum. It builds inertia. And inertia doesn’t sell intelligence. It only delays the reckoning.Before the curtain falls, it’s hard not to revisit the uncanny polish of Apple’s speakers presence. One might start to wonder whether Apple is really late on AI — or whether it’s simply developed such a hyper-advanced internal model that its leadership team has been replaced by real-time human avatars, flawlessly animated, fed directly by the Neural Engine. Not the constrained humanity of two floating eyes behind an Apple Vision headset, but full-on flawless embodiment — if this is Apple’s augmented AI at work, it may be the only undisclosed and underpromised demo actually shipping.OS30 live demoMeanwhile, just as Apple was soft-pedaling its A.I. story with maximum visual polish, a very different tone landed from across the bay: Sam Altman and Jony Ive, sitting in a bar, talking about the future.https://medium.com/media/5cdea73d7fde0b538e038af1990afa44/hrefNo stage. No teleprompter. No uncanny valley. Just two “old friends”, with one hell of a budget, quietly sketching the next era of computing. A vision Apple once claimed effortlessly.There’s still the question of whether Apple, as many hope, can reclaim — and lock down — that leadership for itself. A healthy dose of competition, at the very least, can only help.Too big, fail too was originally published in UX Collective on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

We are told to customize, expand, and provide more options, but that might be a silent killer for our conversion rate. Using behavioral psychology and modern product design, this piece explains why brands like Apple use fewer, smarter choices to convert better.Image generated using ChatgptJam-packed decisionsImagine standing in a supermarket aisle in front of the jam section. How do you decide which jam to buy? You could go for your usual jam, or maybe this is your first time buying jam. Either way, a choice has to be made. Or does it?You may have seen the vast number of choices, gotten overwhelmed, and walked away. The same scenario was reflected in the findings of a 2000 study by Iyengar and Lepper that explored how the number of choice options can affect decision-making.Iyengar and Lepper set up two scenarios; the first customers in a random supermarket being offered 24 jams for a free tasting. In another, they were offered only 6. One would expect that the first scenario would see more sales. After all, more variety means a happier customer. However:Image created using CanvaWhile 60% of customers stopped by for a tasting, only 3% ended up making a purchase.On the other hand, when faced with 6 options, 40% of customers stopped by, but 30% of this number ended up making a purchase.The implications of the study were evident. While one may think that more choices are better when faced with the same, decision-makers prefer fewer.This phenomenon is known as the Paradox of Choice. More choice leads to less satisfaction because one gets overwhelmed.This analysis paralysis results from humans being cognitive misers that is decisions that require deeper thinking feel exhausting and like they come at a cognitive cost. In such scenarios, we tend not to make a choice or choose a default option. Even after a decision has been made, in many cases, regret or the thought of whether you have made the ‘right’ choice can linger.A sticky situationHowever, a 2010 meta-analysis by Benjamin Scheibehenne was unable to replicate the findings. Scheibehenne questioned whether it was choice overload or information overload that was the issue. Other researchers have argued that it is the lack of meaningful choice that affects satisfaction. Additionally, Barry Schwartz, a renowned psychologist and the author of the book ‘The Paradox of Choice: Why Less Is More,’ also later suggested that the paradox of choice diminishes in the presence of a person’s knowledge of the options and if the choices have been presented well.Does that mean the paradox of choice was an overhyped notion? I conducted a mini-study to test this hypothesis.From shelves to spreadsheets: testing the jam jar theoryI created a simple scatterplot in R using a publicly available dataset from the Brazilian e-commerce site Olist. Olist is Brazil’s largest department store on marketplaces. After delivery, customers are asked to fill out a satisfaction survey with a rating or comment option. I analysed the relationship between the number of distinct products in a category (choices) and the average customer review (satisfaction).Scatterplot generated in R using the Olist datasetBased on the almost horizontal regression line on the plot above, it is evident that more choice does not lead to more satisfaction. Furthermore, categories with fewer than 200 products tend to have average review scores between 4.0 and 4.3. Whereas, categories with more than 1,000 products do not have a higher average satisfaction score, with some even falling below 4.0. This suggests that more choices do not equal more satisfaction and could also reduce satisfaction levels.These findings support the Paradox of Choice, and the dataset helps bring theory into real-world commerce. A curation of lesser, well-presented, and differentiated options could lead to more customer satisfaction.Image created using CanvaFurthermore, the plot could help suggest a more nuanced perspective; people want more choices, as this gives them autonomy. However, beyond a certain point, excessive choice overwhelms rather than empowers, leaving people dissatisfied. Many product strategies reflect this insight: the goal is to inspire confident decision-making rather than limiting freedom. A powerful example of this shift in thinking comes from Apple’s history.Simple tastes, sweeter decisionsImage source: Apple InsiderIt was 1997, and Steve Jobs had just made his return to Apple. The company at the time offered 40 different products; however, its sales were declining. Jobs made one question the company’s mantra,“What are the four products we should be building?”The following year, Apple saw itself return to profitability after introducing the iMac G3. While its success can be attributed to the introduction of a new product line and increased efficiency, one cannot deny that the reduction in the product line simplified the decision-making process for its consumers.To this day, Apple continues to implement this strategy by having a few SKUs and confident defaults.Apple does not just sell premium products; it sells a premium decision-making experience by reducing friction in decision-making for the consumer.Furthermore, a 2015 study based on analyzing scenarios where fewer choice options led to increased sales found the following mitigating factors in buying choices:Time Pressure: Easier and quicker choices led to more sales.Complexity of options: The easier it was to understand what a product was, the better the outcome.Clarity of Preference: How easy it was to compare alternatives and the clarity of one’s preferences.Motivation to Optimize: Whether the consumer wanted to put in the effort to find the ‘best’ option.Picking the right spreadWhile the extent of the validity of the Paradox of Choice is up for debate, its impact cannot be denied. It is still a helpful model that can be used to drive sales and boost customer satisfaction. So, how can one use it as a part of your business’s strategy?Remember, what people want isn’t 50 good choices. They want one confident, easy-to-understand decision that they think they will not regret.Here are some common mistakes that confuse consumers and how you can apply the Jam Jar strategy to curate choices instead:Image is created using CanvaToo many choices lead to decision fatigue.Offering many SKU options usually causes customers to get overwhelmed. Instead, try curating 2–3 strong options that will cover the majority of their needs.2. Being dependent on the users to use filters and specificationsWhen users have to compare specifications themselves, they usually end up doing nothing. Instead, it is better to replace filters with clear labels like “Best for beginners” or “Best for oily skin.”3. Leaving users to make comparisons by themselvesToo many options can make users overwhelmed. Instead, offer default options to show what you recommend. This instills within them a sense of confidence when making the final decision.4. More transparency does not always mean more trustInformation overload never leads to conversions. Instead, create a thoughtful flow that guides the users to the right choices.5. Users do not aim for optimizationAssuming that users will weigh every detail before making a decision is not rooted in reality. In most cases, they will go with their gut. Instead, highlight emotional outcomes, benefits, and uses instead of numbers.6. Not onboarding users is a critical mistakeHoping that users will easily navigate a sea of products without guidance is unrealistic. Instead, use onboarding tools like starter kits, quizzes, or bundles that act as starting points.7. Variety for the sake of varietyUsers crave clarity more than they crave variety. Instead, focus on simplicity when it comes to differentiation.And lastly, remember that while the paradox of choice is a helpful tool in your business strategy arsenal, more choice is not inherently bad. It is the lack of structure in the decision-making process that is the problem. Clear framing will always make decision-making a seamless experience for both your consumers and your business.How jam jars explain Apple’s success was originally published in UX Collective on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.