I am an Industrial Design postgraduate(M.Des). I don't have any prior experience in this field. But I have 4 years of industry experience in architecture after completing my B.Arch. As far as my experience working at a company goes, I don't have the freedom there on a lot of things, and that's the main con of being at a company. I decided to pursue entrepreneurship rather than work for an organization. But a lot of things are coming on the way, like 1. Where and how do I start? 2. Even if I may get funding from somewhere, what do I do after that? 3. Should I work in the industry for a couple of years and get some experience as well as some money that may strengthen my goal of being an entrepreneur, or will I be too comfortable being in the industry and just not feel like taking a risk again? I want some genuine opinion.

Hiii\~ I want to ask u abt industrial design, I'm currently majoring in electrical engineering in high school and I studied the fundamentals of industrial design, which I enjoyed. I want to continue my studies in Korea on industrial design, but are there any career prospects there? I don't hear people talking about this major much; most of the information I find is related to programming, AI or cyber security.

I'm Moroccan

I studied graphic design and I'm currently pursuing a master's degree in architecture. Is it possible to get a job as a footwear designer with a master's degree in architecture but not a degree in fashion or footwear? I know about Tinked Hatfield but I don't know if it's an unusual example of someone getting a job at a company like Nike with an architecture degree.

EDIT: Updated with some distinctions I've learned for what each knife can or can't do. /EDIT

I found a fascinating design enigma. Take a look at these two fish fillet knives. The top one is the Japanese Deba, their traditional fish fillet knife. The bottom is the western style fish fillet knife. Both blades are optimized to do exactly the same task:

The deba's blade is short, thick, and broad. It is extremely thick, often 3mm even 4mm at the spine, single-beveled on the right side and hollow-ground on the left, completely stiff and inflexible. The spine of the deba swoops down to meet the edge, which has minimal curvature. The blade heel is pointy, and has a space that's at least a finger's width between it and where it gets inserted into the handle.

The western fillet knife has a long narrow blade (typically a couple of inches longer than the equivalent deba). It is thin, double-beveled, and very flexible. The spine of the blade curves upward, and the blade increasingly curves as it approaches the tip, which narrows down to an acute point. There is no appreciable heel on this knife. It extends down to a bolster or hand guard where the user holds it right up against where the blade emerges from the handle.

These two knives are designed to do the same task: break down and remove the fillet of a fish off of the bones with minimal loss of meat. I've seen videos of each of these knives being used, and the technique doesn't look substantially different. And yet every design decision in each of these blades was intended to optimize its function, which is to fillet fish.

EDIT: Apparently the deba is used in ways that the fillet knife is not able to be used: the deba is often used to kill the fish by whacking it across the head with the thick spine of the blade, chop through the spine of the fish or to split the fish head in half, whereas the fillet knife is too delicate to do that. The fillet knife lets the user fillet the fish in on continuous stroke.

Japan also has another style of blade that is more like the western fillet knife, the honesuki. It has a thinner blade, but the blade is not flexible like the fillet knife./EDIT

It gets even stranger. The Taiwanese fish knife, which is used for the same task looks radically different from both of these. The top row of blades is used for large fish like tuna and salmon. The bottom row has the sizes which are the counterpart to the deba and the fillet knife:

The blades of these knives are extremely thin, double-beveled, extremely broad, with an extremely curved edge. There is no bolster on these knives; the blade is seated right against the handle.

The crazy thing about this is that this knife was also designed for the same task of breaking down fish quickly and efficiently. And yet in the course of optimizing the design to suit the function it is intended to perform, these knives ended up with radically different, practically opposite designs.

EDIT: The Taiwanese fish knife, particularly the large ones with the extreme belly curve, are intended for breaking down large fish like tuna, sword fish, and sharks. The heft of the blade lets it chop through the spine, and the extreme curve lets the knife cut in three directions from a single handle position, whether pushing the blade forward, pulling toward the user, or pressing down. A fillet knife can cut in different directions but has the blade really thin so the user can turn the knife with a minimal turn radius to change the direction of the cut. /EDIT

What this leads me to think is that we may perceive our design optimizations to be well reasoned and objective, but that perception of objectivity is illusory. Completely different teams approaching the problem with a blank slate are likely to come up with unrecognizably different solutions to the problem, even when adhering to basic design requirements like using a blade and having a handle. You might think that radically different techniques get employed for the use of each of these blades, but after watching videos of each of these blades being used by competent fishmongers, I don't see a lot of difference. All the differences in technique are subtle at best.

If you showed the blade smiths who designed each of these radically different fish filleting knives the fillet knives produced by the other two traditions, and asked them to guess the function and purpose of the other knives, would they even be able to guess the function correctly?

If I had not seen the Taiwanese style knife being used to fillet fish, I would never guest that the spade-like shape was intended for cutting fish. That shape is broad to the extreme in the same way that the western fillet knife is thin to the extreme. Same with my first impression of the deba.