it seems to be bit too opinionated and kinda overly exact in values, in some places. it's eager to go for some kind of look it prefers, instead of being more general (for it to be more flexible to fit within people's own tastes, preferences, and design systems), mostly going for more 'spacier values/look'. even in the first rule, with the 'near-black' just being...gray. picking #222 and trying to pass that off as 'near-black' when #111 is just right there, is a choice. #f2f2f2 as a "near-white" as well, that is not near-, that's off-, and again, there's #fafafa or #f7f7f7. rather than being general, giving proportional suggestions, it's not so much "rule of thumb" but "make the values this", which seems like the opposite of the kind of 'advice' it claims to give. (and even if those are just 'examples' - for this to be a page of reference, one'd want to steer from giving exacts as much as possible. so, maybe give examples in like, drop downs? and make the visuals into actual visual guides?)

also, not sure why this kinda random assortment of 'rules' was picked out to be comprised of these ones, and for them to be listed in this way. it doesn't come together into a more systematic approach, it's just kinda all over the place. (unlike if it was ordered more like, 'this is about space; this is about shapes; elements; colors; text; alignment; containers; clarity; complexity; etc.)