The good designers, yes. I'm sure there are plenty of other designers who think their opinion is better than the likely thousands of person-years of UX research that the major OS vendors (combined) have invested into their interface guidelines.
For each of the major platforms, following the guidelines will at least make your app consistent with the other apps on the user's device, which is a decent-enough baseline. Going wild and re-inventing how a drop-down should look or how scrolling should work is probably just going to annoy the user.
I just think it looks ugly, and I don't want to create a product that I don't personally like. Totally open to accessibility and using existing frameworks but not Material.
What's the alternative? I feel like I read a bunch of vague critiques without anything specific.
For what it's worth, I think Google's products are far superior to it's competitors, and I've never had issues with a site looking too Google, though I've been burned by some complex SPAs that were slow and buggy.
There's nothing about that that requires JWTs/signed cookies.
You may need JWTs or their moral equivalents for 3rd party services but, especially for 1st party services, session identifiers are a fine enough scheme that are oftentimes implemented more securely and have the same amount of statelessness (at least from a REST perspective) as a JWT.
Not that cookies are allowable within the constraints of REST anyway due to violation of the uniform interface/stateless constraints, but pragmatically cookies have the most user agent support, and when used as just an session identifier, are relatively close to following the constraints and are much better supported than using the Authorization header or whatever[1].
Statelessness (the lack of "sessions") refers generally to the fact that the client and the server don't need to share state, i.e. the client has all it needs to make a request rather than, like, an "authorization context" or something (which is what a "user session" colloquially is). Unfortunately, the difference in the way the terms were used kinda led to this confusion which made people think that they weren't doing REST unless they were using JWTs or signed cookies.
It's the difference between storing the shopping cart in a cookie or what have you vs. creating a shopping cart resource. In the former scenario, the server has to track where in the (often implicit) state machine the current client is[2], whereas in the latter, the client has all it needs (a URI, authz token, etc) to make the request and all the state is stored server-side.
[1]: If browsers had better support for setting the Authorization header somehow, this would almost certainly just be a "best practice" that we take for granted. Automated clients with API keys tend to be better in this regard.
[2]: And there are significant disadvantages to doing it this way, if you've ever lost your cart or got those weird "session expired" errors after hitting the back button, you've ran into the pitfalls of doing it this way.
Yeah for the reasons you stated I would want to C, but with a better type system, no UB, some of the foot guns removed, and maybe some cool static analysis for stuff like invariants and stack size guarantees built in.
Then you're not paying attention. U.S tech companies are the envy of the world, and every country is looking to limit or cripple them in some way. TikTok is a prime example of how government support has allowed a foreign tech company to unseat what should be an unmoving dominance of western tech. Without equally aggressive support it's only a matter of time before the magnificent 7 are gone, and the Biden admin seemed to be working in the opposite direction.
If you watch their actions it's clear they're already planning it either way. Australia and Canada are pretty much running extortion on social media companies to subsidize local industry, the EU is trying to break up and companies with stuff like DMA, and of course other markets like China don't even bother pretending to care for our companies. As much as I dislike someone like Vance, his willingness to threaten countries for their plans to regulate Twitter is the kind of support big tech needs that the Biden admin had no interest in giving.
I strongly disagree with you here. I think big tech has become way too powerful and has increasingly been wielding said power for evil. I think breaking it up and regulating it is the way forward if we want to save our democracies.
See? You fundamentally don't care about big tech, so why should it care about you? I care about big tech because big tech is America. We've invested all our best and most productive people into tech, and it carries our whole economy and U.S hegemony in general. I don't want to cripple our industry or let someone usurp it. I want democrats to work with big tech to minimize the harm domestically while maintaining dominance.
Big tech is America? What are you even talking about? Big Tech is a tiny fraction of America that's increasingly hated by the rest of the country - and the world.
It's actively harmful to US hegemony, too, with industry leaders starting fights with your closest allies.
Hands off isn't accurate for this administration. They absolutely want to meddle, but instead of breaking big tech they want to work together to advance shared interests. Big tech will never be on the left's side if the left is primarily interested in crippling them, and this generation of tech leaders are no longer interested in passively conforming.
I suspect religion is just a front. There are so many contradictions that suddenly make sense when you start thinking of it as a proxy for ethnic groups.
Historically, embracing a "persuasion" has been part of strategies in games of power - as in, "you are different from us so you cannot govern us".
In the context of this submission: yes, again there can be suspicions of "partitic" actions ("see, we are defending our base").
Which, if this is the case, amounts to blasphemy (again as per my original introduction, then flagged).
(And of course, with regard to the more times expressed relevance of this submission, it raises a question of "and where will this "defence" stop, also considering that we are creating pseudo-mind software?")
This isn't too different from most low-skill jobs. Most people don't aspire to be assistant manager at McDonalds, they do it for a while, build a resume, then move.
Gig workers are literally disposable robots. You’re part of a computer program. There is no human relationship. At least a McDonald’s worker can talk to their manager.
And maybe even become manager in some relatively small number of years. And then move to some other industry. Not that most of them do, but there is at least some career progression.
Managers at McDonalds can make $50-70K/yr. There is job security, benefits and opportunities for career advancement. Plenty of people start at the very bottom of the ladder flipping burgers and make it all the way to corporate. It's a tired meme that "McDonalds jobs are meant for teenagers". These are all incredibly in-demand jobs. And plenty of fast food chains pay significantly more, sometimes including benefits like college tuition reimbursement.
Not to mention casual employees at least get some sort of social aspect from their work life. (A slight variation on the networking you mentioned.) Most of my friends, I have through past work environments like shared offices, etc. That would be near-impossible as a gig worker.
Except when it isn't, like Peter Cancro of Jersey Mikes, who started making sandwiches and then bought it in 1975, and in 2024 sold it to Blackrock for $8B.
People acclimate to their circumstances. Do you think people in developing countries live in a constant state of panic because they don't have a seven figure retirement account?
I've heard professors call ML a form of applied statistics, and I think it's fair to call ML a subfield of statistics that deals with automatically generating statistical models with computers.
reply