It is true, yeah. But it allows you to own the brand identity, which is kinda useful if you have a brand.
I think we’ve found the holy grail with one of my clients recently. Our UI kit follows https://mui.com/ wherever makes sense, but we implement the components ourselves. This means (1) we don’t have to make too many architecture decisions – we just do whatever MUI does, and (2) it’s fairly easy to push back against adding features that don’t add a lot of value and deviate too much from, well, whatever MUI does.
Honestly that’s about the only thing I like in shadcn. It makes scaffolding your UI kit extremely easy, but then you own it and can extend it in whatever way makes sense for you. Unfortunately I’m allergic to Tailwind, and React-only makes it a no-go for me, too :(
There are alternatives, of course, but what I’d like to see is a kinda unified component API spec that you can implement however you like, which both humans and AI can pick up without having to learn whatever idiosyncratic props you might have chosen. So I guess, I’d like to see other libraries use shadcn props with “sane”¹ implementation under the hood?
(¹ – in my case, just plain old Svelte components with inline CSS and/or CSS modules :-)
Forgejo is fairly simple to run – way lighter and simpler than GitLab even. (GitLab is quite okay, too!)
If you want a hosted service, go for Codeberg. It’s run by a German non-profit (so it’ll be hard to bite and switch OpenAI-style). Only free/open source projects are accepted, though.
I’m leaning towards vendoring for all my new projects.
Grabbing an off-the-shelf UI library is easy in the short term, but it’s usually overcomplicated, implements things I won’t ever need, is hard to tweak if/when you want to distinguish your app from the thousand others using the same library, and when you do decide to upgrade it, all your tweaks break in subtle ways.
What I think would be the best approach is building your own UI library. You own it, you get to reuse it across different projects and maintain the same visual style (if desired), and you add features when you need them.
Russians will just share it back (I’m saying that as a Russian). And if not Russians, then somebody else will.
What you can do is make sure people can pay you easily, and not put (a lot of) hurdles in your readers way. And when people can’t afford to pay... maybe let them enjoy your work still, and you’ll get a couple more loyal fans who would pay you when they’re able to.
At least this was my world view before AI has arrived and ruined^W disrupted everything. Now I’m not so sure.
Okay, that one is on me indeed. I’ve re-watched it at 0.5× and he does make 8 taps indeed. Apparently, only the first and the last are registered then. Sorry for the confusion!
Then I definitely need to get some caffeine I guess *yawns*
> And it would be so much more predictable and pleasant if you could just tap the button three times at any pace you wanted without thinking, without paying attention, without getting your UI blocked by an animation that no longer helps you.
The author says: “Now, I’m going to exaggerate the problem a bit and tap 90-degree rotation quickly eight times.” I was wondering why the Nothing one stuck upside down after that, and expected a rant about Android not registering all taps or something. But the article got ahead with explaining how the Nothing’s solution was better. Huh?
The iPhone was eight taps. The Nothing was six. (Yeah, I could have noticed it while watching, but I was situationally incapacitated; namely, I’ve just waken up.)
---
Edit: I’ve rewatched it at 0.5× and the Nothing was eight taps after all, too. Author’s point was, indeed, that all taps should register regardless of what animation state is, and Nothing doesn’t do that. Sorry for the confusion!
---
Regardless! I still find the iPhone one more pleasant to look at, because the animation doesn’t stop. But if you press quickly enough, I guess what they could do is animate until the taps stop, then:
• if the image will arrive to the desired state: finish up the current 90°;
• if it’ll still be 90° away: finish up then show one more 90°;
• if it’ll be 180° away: flip it upside down, then finish up the current 90°;
• if it’ll be 270° away: flip it upside down, finish up, and show one more 90°.
But that’s not a very practical thing to implement I suppose.
The recklessness kinda works for everybody until some point. Go fast and break things... then cash out before investors realize, unless you manage to capture the market so you can keep breaking things because people will swallow.
> This is an RFC with "recommended to implement = N" marked about how to do PQ TLS 1.3 in environemnts where hybrids are too expensive
I think the argument boils down to this, yeah.
I am not a cryptographer, nor I’m participating in IETF (yet :), but he does make a good argument on why sticking with a hybrid for the time being makes sense (in between of all the NSA tinfoil hat stuff). And from an outsider point of view, publishing this as an RFC would somewhat legitimize using ML-KEM alone even though it’s marked as Recommended: N. (I would rather prefer waiting until we can publish it as Recommended: Y instead!)
If there are environments where ECDHE-MLKEM is really that much more expensive than ML-KEM alone, could we figure out another hybrid construction instead? E.g. one that only uses SHA3, if that’s the problem.
> If you want to make software and distribute it anonymously, go ahead and submit it to one of the many malware riddled distributors that don't do any due diligence
Like F-Droid, one of the most famous malware dens in the Android ecosystem.
> It provides no security, so why would anyone ever accept it a proof of identity?
Because there is no other universal method that works online, and because companies don’t really care about identity verification – they just need something “good enough” so that they can say “hey, we’ve followed industry standard protocols, how could we have known this passport scan was photoshopped?”
And to be honest I think it’s for the best. I really don’t want to be scrutinized even more online (and give even more personal data so it gets leaked a couple years later).
[email protected]