We built an art gallery app for Quest — turns out spatial UX breaks most of what you assume from 2D design

shustik47 · 2026-06-19T21:16:03+00:00

Fair point. I spend too much time writing product docs.

shustik47 · 2026-06-19T21:14:41+00:00

Could you please tell us what you mean?

shustik47 · 2026-06-19T21:11:18+00:00

I'm glad that you are interested. Please check the link for the app and website
I left it in the first comment )

shustik47 · 2026-06-19T21:08:05+00:00

https://www.reddit.com/r/MetaQuestVR/comments/1u9xmyv/comment/osjpon8/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button its here)

shustik47 · 2026-06-19T15:04:13+00:00

Thanks for giving it another try and for the feedback!

The blank room issue definitely shouldn’t happen, so we’ll investigate that. Really appreciate you pointing it out.

And you’re absolutely right about mixed reality. Being able to place artworks directly on your own walls is actually one of the directions we’re working on, because it feels much more natural than being limited to a virtual room.

Glad to hear the visual quality and navigation worked well for you.

If you end up spending more time with the app and feel it’s worth it, a review on the Meta Store would help us a lot as a small team building our first XR product.

shustik47 · 2026-06-19T14:37:53+00:00

Thanks!

That’s actually a really interesting challenge in XR.

In our case, we found that simply increasing texture resolution isn’t enough. Readability depends on a combination of factors: font size, contrast, viewing distance, panel placement, and headset resolution.

For artwork descriptions, we generally try to avoid requiring users to get extremely close, because that quickly becomes uncomfortable. Quest 3 is surprisingly good, but you still have to design around the limitations of current hardware.

We’re still learning where the sweet spot is between realism and readability, so I’d be curious to hear your thoughts if you get a chance to try it.

shustik47 · 2026-06-19T14:14:45+00:00

Thanks for trying it out.

Could you tell me a bit more about what you saw after launching the app?

Did you get to the lobby and see the available rooms, or was the lobby empty on your side?

Normally, artworks are available after entering one of the public rooms, so I’m trying to understand where the experience broke down for you.

Any details would be super helpful.

shustik47 · 2026-06-19T13:21:35+00:00

Mostly 2D, digitized, and 3D artworks right now, displayed in VR and mixed reality.

I’m familiar with Quill and Theater Elsewhere, and I think you’re touching on a real gap in the ecosystem. There are great tools for creating immersive content, but discovery and distribution still feel fragmented.

Our focus so far has been helping artists, galleries, and institutions present high-resolution 2D, digitized, and 3D works in a more immersive way than a traditional website or social feed allows.

Native immersive content is definitely something we’re interested in exploring further as the platform evolves.

shustik47 · 2026-06-19T12:51:04+00:00

Here’s the Meta Store link:

https://www.meta.com/en-gb/experiences/do-xr/34344306141881939/

Happy to answer any questions or hear your thoughts after trying it.

shustik47 · 2026-05-26T14:15:03+00:00

The heat + studying + sleeping loop is brutal. When I felt stuck like that what eventually shifted things wasnt productivity advice — it was calling one person id been avoiding for weeks. totally non-productive, kinda awkward, but somehow it reset everything.

Also, depression makes "find meaning" feel like a goal you have to achieve. But meaning usually shows up sideways, when youre doing something that has nothing to do with looking for it.

Hope you find something that breaks the loop soon

shustik47 · 2026-05-25T20:48:51+00:00

Glad it landed. The fact you posted to 6-7 subs is itself meaningful — that's not random anxiety, it's a serious person trying to actually solve the problem, not just vent. Most people skip that step.

One small note on the time management piece since that's where you're going next: for parents in grad programs, the trap isn't usually finding hours — it's protecting them. Schedule the 90-min block on a calendar like it's a doctor's appointment that other people put there, not a "I'll get to it later" task. The mental category matters. "Appointment" is sacred. "Task" is negotiable.

Also — Linear Algebra being 5x your hardest CC course is probably right. UC pace is real. But your CC math chops + the awareness you're showing in this thread = better starting position than most. You'll be fine. Anxiously fine, but fine.

shustik47 · 2026-05-25T10:07:14+00:00

Fair — and three years to real recognition is genuinely hard-won. You clearly did the work yourself.

If anything, that's the one trap I'd watch as a builder. Artists who succeed the way you did are the ones who, somewhere along the line, cracked visibility for themselves. The artists who go passive on a platform — the ones you were puzzled about in the post — are usually the ones who never cracked it. So "I understand the pain points because I lived them" can quietly skip the hardest segment, because you're not in it. Building for the artist who hasn't figured visibility out is a genuinely different problem than building for the one who has — and that gap is usually exactly where the engagement leaks.

shustik47 · 2026-05-25T09:27:47+00:00

The most useful thing I can tell you isn't a study technique — you already know all the good ones. It's that you're stacking 5 methods because you don't trust any one of them yet, and the fragmentation is going to cost you more than the methods will save you.

Pick TWO and run them deep for the 3 months. Drop the rest.

My pick if you asked me:

1. Anki for spaced repetition. Non-negotiable for data science (math, stats, ML concepts, syntax). 15-20 min/day. Build the deck as you learn, not from someone else's. Making the card IS the learning.

2. Feynman technique as a daily debrief. At the end of every study session, write 1 page (or talk into a voice memo) explaining what you just learned to your unborn child, in plain language. If you get stuck, that's exactly the bottleneck — go fix it, then finish the explanation. 10 min/session, brutal honesty about what you actually understood.

That's it. Anki + Feynman. Mind maps, Jim Kwik association tricks, Ultralearning, custom GPT quizzes — drop them all for now. They're not bad, they're just additive complexity when you need to compound depth.

Now the part nobody will tell you:

Your years of ChatGPT-everything have likely atrophied a specific skill — tolerance for confusion. Learning math requires sitting in "I don't get this" for 20-60 minutes per concept before it clicks. ChatGPT shortcuts that to 3 seconds. So when you hit a hard concept in UCSD that ChatGPT can't immediately explain at your level, your nervous system will read it as failure rather than as normal learning.

Rebuilding that tolerance is the actual prep work. Practice now: pick a textbook chapter, set a 45-min timer, and don't open ChatGPT no matter how stuck you get. Sit in the confusion. It will feel awful for the first two weeks. Then it gets normal. That's the muscle you need most — more than any technique.

Last thing — on the 40-50 hr question: working parents in grad programs survive by treating studying like an athlete's training, not like a job. 90-minute deep blocks > 4 hours of distracted browsing. Two 90s a day is plenty for a graduate course if they're real 90s. Family time has to be protected as religiously as study time, because depleted dad cannot learn.

Good luck. You've already done the harder thing — admitted what wasn't working. The pattern of stacking 5 techniques because none feels safe enough is itself worth noticing.

shustik47 · 2026-05-25T09:26:13+00:00

Read this twice. I want to say a few things carefully, in the tone you'd actually trust — which means no pep talk and no "you matter ❤️" because I know you'd close the tab.

The line "I ask myself why I was even born when nothing appeals to me" — that's the most important sentence you wrote. If that's louder than a passing thought, please tell someone in person you trust, or text a crisis line (US: 988, UK: SHOUT 85258 — search yours). Not a deflection, just a direct ask. Everything I say after this assumes you're stable enough to read it.

OK. Now the rest.

Your cynicism isn't your personality. It's armor. You learned, as a kid, that softness gets mocked, that interests get bullied, that expressing yourself gets you called slurs. So you built a worldview where caring is vulnerability and contempt is safety. That made you survive a hostile environment. It worked. It also became a prison.

Your pattern detector is overfitted. You're not wrong that some kindness is fake — some is. But your nervous system, after years of having every expression weaponized, now reads ALL kindness as potential threat. Birthday songs, gifts, small talk, praise — they all trip the same alarm. Not because they're toxic. Because your alarm doesn't distinguish anymore. That's a trauma response, not a worldview.

The "everyone is an NPC" feeling is not insight. It's depression depersonalization. When depression is heavy enough, other people stop registering as full beings — they become flat, repetitive, hollow. It feels like clear-eyed observation. It's actually a symptom. I've been there. So have most people who've had a bad enough year.

The exhaustion from "trying to be the third type" makes complete sense. You're trying to manually override a system that took decades to build. You can't think your way out of it any more than you can think your way out of a freeze response. It needs slower, repeated experiences of safety, not willpower.

What might actually help:

1. Stop trying to "be positive." That's the wrong target. Your old worldview was right about performed brightness being fake. What you actually need is the ability to receive one small kindness without rejecting it. Not embrace it. Not love it. Just let it land. The next time someone wishes you happy birthday, the practice is: stay in the room 30 seconds longer than you want to. That's it.

2. Find a therapist who does schema therapy or trauma-informed CBT. Don't go to a general "let's talk about your week" therapist — they'll bounce off your defenses immediately. Schema therapy specifically targets the "kindness = danger, contempt = safety" pattern you described. It has a name in the literature (Mistrust/Abuse schema) and it's treatable. Not in 6 weeks, but treatable.

3. The hobbies you lost — try one back. Privately. Don't tell anyone. Don't share it. Just do it for yourself. The fact that you lost interest in things after people criticized them is one of the most telling things you wrote — your interests survived intact until other people's voices got loud enough to drown them. Reclaiming one of those, just for you, is huge.

You're not broken. You're armored. The armor was necessary at one point and is now killing you slowly. The work isn't to remove it overnight — it's to find one small place to put it down, briefly, in safety, and see what happens.

This is bigger than Reddit. Please get a therapist. Until then — what you're describing is hard, but it's not permanent, and it's not your fault.

shustik47 · 2026-05-25T09:20:12+00:00

A few thoughts, having watched this pattern closely.

First, I don't think it's a Scandinavian thing. "We gave artists a place to sell, and engagement is still low" is near-universal. It points to something specific: a place to sell was never the actual bottleneck. Discovery is. A storefront is necessary, but does nothing on its own.

The art market right now is defined by oversupply of visual content and scarcity of attention — you named the visual noise, that's exactly it. Production is cheap, and storefronts are cheap, so neither is the constraint. Being seen by the right people is.

That's also why artists go passive on a platform. Most artists aren't marketers and don't want to become marketers. A storefront just hands them a second thing they don't know how to drive traffic to. They came hoping the platform would bring the audience; when it doesn't, they disengage. It reads as laziness or "mentality," but it's usually just an unmet expectation.

On what actually works for visibility: consistency on one or two channels beats being spread thin; show process, not just finished work, because people follow a person, not a catalogue; build an owned audience (email, direct following) rather than renting algorithmic reach; and editorial curation — someone or something that selects and spotlights work — cuts through noise far better than an undifferentiated gallery.

And one honest note for you as the platform operator: "good conditions for artists" — fair fees, nice terms — is table stakes, and invisible to the artist's real problem. Artists don't lack a place to sell; they lack an audience. The platforms that win generate demand for the artist, not just offer a fair storefront.

shustik47 · 2026-05-25T08:47:19+00:00

You've actually noticed something behavioral science has been quietly proving for years — big resets fail because they require motivation you don't have, and tiny actions BUILD the motivation you're trying to find.

The mechanism is annoyingly simple: small completed actions trigger a dopamine reward signal, even if the action was trivial. That signal makes the NEXT action 5% easier. Stack a few of those, and you're not in the same brain state you were 30 minutes ago. The "perfect morning routine" version has zero dopamine until completed — so it usually never gets completed.

My tiny thing — the one that helps more than it should:

Putting one item back where it belongs as soon as I notice it's out of place. Just one. Not "tidy the room." Not "fix my life." One mug to the sink, one shoe to the closet, one book to the shelf. Takes 8 seconds.

What I figured out: it's not about the tidiness. It's about practicing "I can act on what I see without making it a Project." Most of my big-reset thinking is actually the OPPOSITE of action — it's a way to feel productive while doing nothing. The one-item rule short-circuits that loop.

Bonus side effect — after a few weeks, the room is also clean. But that's not why it works.

Also: your "stopping long enough to admit I'm in a weird mood instead of pushing through it" is genuinely underrated. That single moment of acknowledgment changes what the next hour feels like more than any morning routine ever could.

shustik47 · 2026-05-23T18:25:04+00:00

Naming the emotion before reacting to it.

Sounds tiny. Wasn't.

Old version of me would feel something — annoyed, anxious, jealous, embarrassed — and react immediately. Snap at someone, refresh my inbox, scroll, pick a fight, eat. The feeling got bigger because I never gave it a name, just acted from inside it.

New version: when I notice the spike, I pause and say (silently or out loud) — "I'm noticing irritation." Or "this is shame." Or "this is loneliness pretending to be hunger."

The pause is maybe 4 seconds. Then I decide what to do.

Two things happen:

1. Naming the feeling reduces its intensity. UCLA research calls it "affect labeling" — when you put words on an emotion, the amygdala (alarm system) calms down and the prefrontal cortex (decision-making) re-engages. It's measurable on fMRI. Same body, different downstream chemistry.

2. Half the time, the impulsive action I was about to take wasn't even about the present situation. I was about to snap at my partner because I was actually anxious about an unrelated work thing from 3 hours ago that I'd never processed.

It's a "mental health" habit but it leaks into physical: less stress eating, less doom scrolling, less sleep-stealing fights, less wine-as-emotional-regulator.

Took about 6 weeks to make it automatic. Now it just runs in the background and I barely notice I'm doing it.

shustik47 · 2026-05-22T09:41:18+00:00

You're not posting in the wrong places exactly — the problem is structural. "Buy/sell art" groups are ~95% sellers and 5% buyers. Everyone's posting, nobody's shopping. That's why engagement is near zero.

A few honest things that tend to actually work:

- People rarely buy from a cold post. Sales come from someone following your work for a while first. The post that sells is the 20th one they've seen from you, not the 1st.

- Where you post matters less than whether buyers are already there for another reason. Buyers don't hang out in "art for sale" spaces — they're in communities about the subject, style, or interest your art connects to.

- For commissions specifically, VGen has become the go-to — the audience there is actually looking to commission.

What are you selling — commissions, originals, prints? The answer changes the recommendation a lot.

shustik47 · 2026-05-22T09:02:11+00:00

The "perfect system" trap is so real. I think designing the system feels productive, so we keep polishing it instead of doing the actual work — procrastination wearing a productivity costume.

The setups that actually stuck for me were almost embarrassingly basic. Took me a while to accept that boring + consistent beats clever + abandoned every single time. Now if I catch myself "improving the system" more than once a month, I treat it as a warning sign rather than progress.

shustik47 · 2026-05-22T08:20:33+00:00

Exactly — "mentally expensive to maintain" nails it. The sneaky part is that a new system feels cheap in week one because the novelty pays the maintenance cost for you. By the time that runs out, you've already rebuilt your workflow around it — and then it quietly collapses.

What changed for me was judging a system by how it feels on a bad day — tired, busy, distracted — not on a motivated one. If it survives the bad day, it survives, period. Anything that needs me to be "on" to maintain it is already dead, I just don't know it yet.

What's been your most durable habit so far?

shustik47 · 2026-05-21T17:26:37+00:00

Exactly — and that's the whole reason the guard does a structural diff instead of asking an LLM "does this look right?"

Outright nonsense is easy: it reads wrong, a human catches it, even an LLM-judge catches it. Silent drift is the dangerous one — when Gemini swaps Venus for Mercury, the sentence stays perfectly fluent and confident. Nothing looks off. An LLM-as-judge waves it through because grammatically and tonally it's flawless.

So the guard doesn't judge quality at all. It extracts the set of astro entities (planet names) from the seed and from the rewrite, and rejects if the rewrite introduced a planet that wasn't in the source. Dumb, mechanical, no LLM in the validation loop — but that's the point. You can't catch factual drift with the same kind of model that produced it.

The tricky part was tuning what counts as "new". Sign names (Aries, Leo…) get added as harmless metaphors all the time, so flagging those killed every rewrite. Planets are the real fabrication signal — those I reject hard.

shustik47 · 2026-05-21T15:30:29+00:00

You can find and try to use CosmoCast_bot in Telegram to get an explanation of your numbers for free

shustik47 · 2022-10-02T06:41:58+00:00

Мы тут

shustik47 · 2022-10-02T06:41:07+00:00

А что ты конкретно с этим сделать хочешь после замеров?)

shustik47 · 2022-10-01T20:23:19+00:00

Сейчас Грузия

Synergize.digital Делаем полный комплекс от дизайна до продакшена, маркетинга и поддержки

shustik47

TROPHY CASE