Apple design nowadays should be something we point to and laugh at, not something to imitate.

Apple lost the plot on design after Steve Jobs died and Jony Ive assumed full control.

It's not Jony Ive's fault. That's the nature of their partnership, he created and Steve Jobs edited. Ive, of all people, probably lost the most when Steve Jobs died.

It's all been downhill ever since. Ousting Jony Ive and putting Alan Dye in charge didn't help.

The problem remains: there's no longer an editor in charge.

Apple fans like to think that they've recovered a little since the iOS 7 debacle, but in reality it's just self delusion.

I've been running the beta on my phone for a while ago, and I pretty much forgot about it. The new design works really well and is much less obtrusive than you'd imagine. Those few bad moments posted from the first dev beta have all been resolved now.

It still has plenty of consistency errors and issues for the devs. But even if they fix all the bugs, I still think the UI changes are regressive: now things are buried in even more icons; the menus warp, change color, and move in distracting ways; and text on button and menus have never been harder to read.

Most people aren't very discerning about user interface intricacies.

Most people's reaction to the iOS 7 design disaster was: "ooh this feels like a whole new phone".

So there's that.

You will see something similar to Liquid Glass in OneUI 9 or 10 or Material Design 4. I can tell.

I don't know much about Gemini beyond a cursory look, but I don't think inline media is impossible. IIUC it is up to the Gemini client to decide if it displays media inline.

My understanding is that Gemini clients don't display inline media in order to defeat privacy-compromising techniques such as tracking pixels. A Gemini client could very reasonably decide to show images inline if they are larger than 16x16 for instance.

It means you can't create content that you will know will display the same in different clients.

This feature really isn't all that bad!

> To declare a function, you can use any letters from the word function (as long as they're in order):

> function add (a, b) => a + b!

> func multiply (a, b) => a * b!

> fun subtract (a, b) => a - b!

> fn divide (a, b) => a / b!

> functi power (a, b) => a * b!

When I first read this, I thought the function names could only include letters from the word function, and only in order!

Incidentalley this allows for

   count func (a,b) => ...
   in out (a,b) => ...
   of if (a,b) => ...

Wonderful language, wonderful.

The letters have to be in order so maybe this will not work?

That's right, "in" works, but "count" and "of" don't.

Here are some of my favorites:

union

funi

funion

fution (sounds like fussion)

fu

fuc

fucton (as noted by a fellow commenter)

You must be a fan of Subversion then. On a more serious note, I'm sure I've seen this (any unique shortenings standing in for the whole word) in an actual language at some point, and it was infuriating.

> add a bunch of water to the pan and steam them

This is pretty ironic in a thread about the misuse of the term "caramelize".

It's not steaming if you put water into the food directly. It's simply ... cooking, or maybe simmering/stewing.

> adding water at the beginning and essentially steaming the onions

This is pretty ironic in a thread about the misuse of the term "caramelize".

It's not steaming if you put water into the food directly. It's simply ... cooking, or maybe simmering/stewing.

I haven't seen "to no end" being used to mean "for no purpose".

But I see GP's usage of "to no end" a lot.

You may enjoy this SNL song Short-Ass Movies: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-UKbwz6s6VY

> It is not about 'looking and pushing' the button.

> It's about stateful UI.

Yes it is about 'looking and pushing' the button.

And yes it's about stateful UI.

Both can be true at the same time.

XML? That's so ... turn of the century.

Thankfully the industry has mostly woken up from the collective nightmare that was XML.

But apparently a few poor souls are still painfully asleep.

Absolutely. XML is rarely a good solution for any problem, and usually the worst.

> I’d like to do the same for Android projects, but Google is hellbent on the XML usage if you’re building with Android Framework…

For sure the Android API is oriented towards building GUIs in XML, but it's actually quite possible to build your Android GUI in Java code.

When I started developing for Android, I took a look at a few tutorials and said "no way", searched the web for how to build Android GUIs programmatically, and never looked back.