If you'll accept the step of copying the values into the tool that figures out the complementary colors for you, macOS comes with Digital Color Meter, which will tell you the color of anything on your screen.
Commentbait, I smell it but still will say this.. A good side project takes one or more known solutions and applies it to a niche. There's endless niches out there if you stand still and squint a bit.
Matching UI to designs was horrible on Android, at least as of ~1.5yrs ago. Even if designers were shooting for "Material". Plenty of rough edges. I wouldn't say 2x-3x longer for a typical project, though.
I could see there being issues with relatively new-to-Android developers not appreciating the degree to which advice from the official docs, especially relating to structuring applications, should be taken with a largish dose of salt, leading to slow-and-getting-slower development as an Android project went along.
To get to the level of world class competitiveness i'd say it's true. if you want to compete with say instagram then android is such a PITA to design for.
As for your second point, i've always followed the official docs,are you saying there's another way?
Square's guides and libraries in particular were a great place to start when last I worked on Android (2017). They filled in a lot of dumb gaps in basic, common functionality, and their guides and blog posts on Android topics generally left me feeling more confident in them than in Google's Android team. They were among the ones calling "the Emperor has no clothes!" over fragments, for instance, and they described and built alternatives.
It does look like they've abandoned a couple of their big view-related Java libs, which makes me wonder what they're using now. Seems they've switched to Kotlin for a lot of stuff.
Don't remember their blog being on Medium (ick) but it is now, looks like:
I don't get why people name-drop Ricardo as the final authority on why free trade, in practice, is definitely in everyone's best interest. Ricardo's work was very narrow and didn't have much to say about the distribution of gains from free trade even under the conditions in which his work held.
My best friend is an economics PhD. He often laments on the fact that the average college-educated person has enough Economics exposure to make glib, dismissive comments like "That's Economics 101" or reference early economic thinkers, when Economics is really a broad, constantly-evolving field that is much more complex and nuanced than the GER courses would lead you to believe.
It isn't particularly helpful that economics as a discipline seems to have the same predictive value as soothsayers and court jesters(). Mostly economic theory in the western world is used as a cudgel to justify particular policies that benefit a few at the expense of many.
() eg: all the following were justified by "economists": trickle down economics were promised to increase middle class (nope), prediction of inflation caused by quantitative easement (hasn't happened yet), devaluation of dollar due to trade deficit (hasn't happened yet), gains in tax revenues by unlocking growth through tax cuts (nope), etc ...
> It isn't particularly helpful that economics as a discipline seems to have the same predictive value as soothsayers and court jesters().
Much as I like to point out that microeconomics has a way better record than macroeconomics, it’s akso easier because we have much, much more data.
You’re still wrong about macroeconomics though.
If you increase the money supply you’ll get inflation. If you increase it a lot you’ll get hyperinflation. If you surprise people with unexpectedly higher inflation you’ll get a boom. As people realise inflation is higher than expected you’ll get a recession.
If you raise taxes unexpectedly people will spend less, not just because they have less money, but because they realise they’ll have less money than they expected over the course of their whole lives, they’re poorer.
Saying macroeconomists don’t know anything because politicians do what they want and find a convenient economist to justify it later is like saying no one knows anything in computer science because JavaScript frameworks change every two years.
You're right, and, as a self-hating economist, I think he would agree with most of what you said.
Here are his thoughts on supply-side "trickle-down" economics:
"It's basically what happens when a college sophomore attends the first 8 weeks of an intro macro course and is like, 'ok, I've heard enough. I'm going to go write policy now'."
It makes sense in the context of basic economic theory devoid of complication introduced later, but no legitimate economists still believe in supply-side economics and very few did to begin with. The powers that be reached for, and continue to reach for, economic theory that supports their agenda; they don't look for consensus in the academic community.
I do not intend to defend macroeconomics predictive powers, as I agree it is bad.
But skyrocketing healthcare, education, and housing costs could easily be due to inflation. They are all inelastic goods that the CPI ignores. They are purchased with seemingly infinite loan availability.
When a loan is granted that money is conjured out of thin air, inflating the money supply.
The problem with economics is that you can't tell which parts you can take seriously and which parts you can't. Both sides of the argument tend to offer a lot of criticism to the other side and it's not obvious which side is politically motivated or stands to gain from a specific policy and which side is doing it because it would be a net positive to society. There are many people who think socialism will be better than our current economic system and many of these people even have political power.
The most useful ones are already free. So, probably none that I don't already. Development resources (free, hosted by companies with incentive to spread the info). Wikipedia. Rarely I still manage to stumble on some non-monetized hobbyist sites, despite their being hard to find under current search algos (infrequent updates, no attention to SEO, no padding things to look like "more unique content per page" to Google), and that's nice.
The rest I already pay for (Netflix, which just barely skates by being so cheap), are essentially utility things (bank sites, government), or are so low-value I'd probably be better off not using them, frankly. Or are simply piracy sites (library genesis / scihub), for that matter.
Any topic I scratch the surface of in online research I end up at excellent, totally free (not ad supported) resources or finding that I need to track down some books, or some combination of the two.
As someone who's always skipped breakfast more often than not, I too find calling that "fasting" kinda silly. I'd reserve that for going at least a whole day without food, before it deserves much consideration.
I rarely eat breakfast and often skip lunch. I find that when instead of doing that I focus on eating more meals but also driving up my vegetable and fruit intake to as high a % of my calories as I can stand, I feel healthier and have an easier time keeping weight in check.
Since most of the other OECD states are representative democracies of one sort or another, and since pretty much all of them have some form of universal health coverage, if the US system's an improvement over any of those in other OECD states, I expect there are strong, popular reform movements in at least some of them looking to move their system closer to that of the US. Right? Not to improve their systems in other ways, but specifically to move closer to that of the US. Since that'd be a clear improvement if they just "get real".
I’ve raised this exact question and never seen an honest response. Why aren’t politicians in other OECD countries trying to make their system more like ours? Why aren’t their citizens demanding it?
Yeah IDK if I'm just way worse at focusing on spoken words while doing other things than most people or what, but I can't get into podcasts or audio books at all. If I do other things while listening I miss so much that I have no idea what's going on, and even the supposedly very good ones are so dull that if I'm going to spend focused time consuming them I'd rather read, or watch something, or listen closely to some good music, or almost anything else.
I guess maybe if I got back into running they'd be good for that. Can't think of when else I could possibly use them.
I've found it extremely dependent on fine differences in the primary thing I'm doing. e.g. I have no problem following if I'm going on an uneventful or familiar drive, but will automatically tune it out if I don't know where I'm going.
It's not just Jira. Asana spins up the fans and causes UI hangs like crazy. The other day on my personal macbook my UI kept freezing for a few seconds at a time and... sure enough, I'd left a Trello tab open by accident.
For whatever reason, project management tools all perform like shit and grind my system to a standstill. PMs never seem to mind, which is why they keep being so awful I guess.
That the narrow result of a single vote is seen as sufficient justification to wildly swing a government's policy in a new direction with huge effects over decades is... baffling to me. Watching it happen is like seeing something announced by someone pretending to be a US President in a Saturday Night Live sketch and then, the next day, everyone treating it like a real thing that had happened and the whole state's policy shifting to reflect those statements, and no-one acting like that's extremely weird and insane.
I dunno. The market for something along these lines is probably as big as a substantial portion of the entire portable computer market was in, say, the late 90s. And it'd have basically no competition (at least at launch). Seems like it should be a viable product that could be brought to market at a non-insane price. Should.
Capitalism's weird. We end up with the most popular version of a thing being dirt cheap and common as air, and anything even slightly different or better being impossible to get or absurdly expensive.
