It's a lovely idea, but so far all software personalization I can think of (in the sense of software adapting to the individual, rather than the individual adapting their software à la malleable software) has been weaponized against the user rather than used to support them. Occasional attempts in the other direction like adaptive user interfaces (<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adaptive_user_interface" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adaptive_user_interface</a>) tend to fail because they break habit formation (c.f. Raskin)
Conceptually nice, but I don't know what this looks like in practice. An "examples" section is sorely needed.
My understanding was that Christopher Alexander called the quality without a name "wholeness" later in their life. Does it mean a different thing than the "resonance" in this article?
I think manifestos are useless without a concrete, real-world example for people to follow and add on to. It's easy to wish for puppies and rainbows, but trying to deliver is hard.<p>For example, Linear has a useful manifesto (<a href="https://linear.app/method" rel="nofollow">https://linear.app/method</a>) because they have a product that attempts to follows it. I have much more respect for a manifesto that is informed by contact with reality.
I agree, but I always assume manifestos are distillations from experience.<p>Is it that you want to be able to inspect the experience that informs it side-by-side, in case-studies or product or something?<p>I take it for granted that you're not sceptical of the authors experience, because lord knows there's some experience behind the contributors and signatories :)<p>Maggie Appleton
Samuel Arbesman
Daniel Barcay
Rob Hardy
Aishwarya Khanduja
Alex Komoroske
Geoffrey Litt
Michael Masnick
Brendan McCord
Bernhard Seefeld
Ivan Vendrov
Amelia Wattenberger
Zoe Weinberg
Simon Willison
I’m a fan of the goal here, would be interested to see what initiatives folks are envisioning to get us there, as it were
Glad to see this getting another round of discussion. It was barely discussed when it was released ~2+ months ago.<p><a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46163347">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46163347</a><p>Simon Willison is a cosigner, and posted on his blog the day it was released:<p><a href="https://simonwillison.net/2025/Dec/5/resonant-computing/" rel="nofollow">https://simonwillison.net/2025/Dec/5/resonant-computing/</a><p>Something has to change from the advertising centric, attention hijacking drain current technology is circling. I agree with one of the other posts here that some examples of software that adhere to these principles would be a welcome addition. But I think the list includes a lot of open source software and not a lot of social media software.
This seems a tad ambiguous and fails to touch upon some key issues. What does it mean for software to "respond fluidly". What does "technology that adapts itself" mean?. This manifesto paints a negative picture of the current "software environment" or "technological landscape", clearly with social media in mind, but then attempts to solve the situation with "ai will solve it bro, dont worry about it, just as long as theres rainbows and we all care for each other maaaan" :)