"Froont is the fastest solution for designers who want to prototype responsive websites with their true content."
>at the bottom. It's for "prototypes."
583 karma · joined March 9, 2013
>at the bottom. It's for "prototypes."
-code illiterate -drag n' drop syndrome -shortcut seeking -so visually oriented that they might as well be blind
It honestly makes designers look bad. Modern designers know how to code as well (or should). Why? So that they design with the development in mind and don't deliver shit that's too outlandish to implement, or more importantly, deliver shit that's ignorant of what's possible.
For IOS and Obj-C there is one absolute winner for me:
Simon Allardice's Obj-C and iOS courses http://www.lynda.com/Simon-Allardice/21-1.html
He is by far the most thorough and entertaining bald, british, programming teacher ever. Granted, he focuses on the core essentials, but that's generally what you need anyway.
Hope this helps!
Of course, adapting this model puts more risk on you as the designer - however, if you get good at it, you can finish projects in a much smaller time frame and technically skyrocket your "hourly" rate.
This is how I would always approach clients - 1 price to get want you want, fuck ups are on me. And the reason I would word it like that is for one very PRIME reason:
Most clients don't understand the value of the iterative failure.
The typical iOS user has become accustomed to using native apps over the browser. It's very hard to battle habitual behavior. Additionally, every time iOS users are given a mobile web app, until VERY recently, those experiences have been miserable . . . . and seriously, if you're on iOS (especially iPhone, not so much iPad), you know what I mean.
Therefore, the routinized web app sucking and not feeling as "snappy" as a native has just put web-apps in a damn rut. I would absolutely LOVE for user to get into the habit of using WebApps, but unfortunately, Apple has a HUGE incentive to keep users funneled to native ones.
1. Hopefully the words "Monetary Policy" and "Fiscal Policy" ring a bell. The ability to control market fluctuations, let alone wield some level of political power as a government, lies heavily within a government's ability to utilize its money supply. Not all regulation/rule is evil - what would a programming language be without regulation/rules? Additionally, the great depression was more than proof at the need for some level of market regulation (John Keynes).
2. Basing money on a fixed supply, IE FUCKING ENERGY (since it can't be created or destroyed), would imply that there is a fixed amount of wealth. That's called Mercantilism and it was disbanded by Adam Smith... and 1000s of other economists/governments/times/etc
3. Bitcoin and friends decrease the transaction costs of money exchange (government regulation, forex, taxes). Money creates liquidity for the value you've created, and Bitcoin and friends makes that value more liquid -in certain ways- but it does not replace money.
4. Stability. Knowing that there is an entity that will back their currency, filled with fail safes, etc. encourages proliferation of that currency. It's why most investments (forex wies) are done in US dollars. Thing such as bitcoin, do not have that type of security. (FDIC anyone?)
5. Decentralization of currency often leads to destabilization of currency. If anyone can make it (and yes, it is far more likely someone will create a bitcoin instead of forging a US dollar), then the value in and of itself will drop.
6. "But WallStreet and all the finance people are up in a yipyap about it!" That's because it's an investment - many people play the forex (foreign exchange market) because there is much profit to be made from arbitrating currencies.
7. Inflation is needed - Milton Friedman has this at about 4% or so a year to keep up (check on that). Why? Try playing monopoly with 4 players with the set of cash they give you. Then try it with 10. There's not enough money to represent the players, therefore you need more. Inflation isn't always bad.
-One of the most popular libraries is dropping support for IE 6,7, and 8. Thus, yet another cornerstone of the web is going to push users forward and increase the chance that those miserable browsers will disappear.
The most disturbing thing I find is that there are developers that are DEFENDING existence for those older browsers. Are you masochists? Do you enjoy the headaches of fucking around with those??
"Oh but so many clients are still using them, and it writes off potential users!"
How can we ever expect for them to upgrade their damn browser unless the builders the web (developers, not just browsers) quit allowing them to rot in complacency????
Of course, there is a thing as going "too leading edge" and expecting "too much" from the user...but when the cornerstones (libs, browsers, etc) start pushing them forward - then we should embrace this change. Coding for the multi-browser/platform/device/version web is hard enough.
Is anyone else moving away from html5 to native? What I find odd about this is Paul Graham's whole "web software" is the future - and yet if "Mobile" future and mobile users favor "native software" ............. then it seems that native would be the future.
Of course, one can just say "yes, but native is becoming hybrid with web." And that's definitely true, but it still makes things very dependent upon the client and not as "platform agnostic" as a full web movement would be.
Is anyone else moving away from html5 to native? What I find odd about this is Paul Graham's whole "web software" is the future - and yet if "Mobile" future and mobile users favor "native software" ............. then it seems that native would be the future.
Of course, one can just say "yes, but native is becoming hybrid with web." And that's definitely true, but it still makes things very dependent upon the client and not as "platform agnostic" as a full web movement would be.
Because people make the mistake of constant blanket statements:
Technical people say: "MBAs always suck."
Non-Technicals say: "Techies are incessant and snarky geeks."
One blanket statement results in the retort of another statement, and then group polarization takes effect. So by making this rant, you're just setting a precedent for Techies to be flamed at MBAs even more.
How odd that such a huge portion of the US worships a ton of bulked up dudes tossing a brown ball back and forth. My favorite oddities:
1. One that smacked me in the face from Paul Graham's essay was that when a CEO makes 100x the normal pay...it is an outrage. But those same people complaining are okay with all of these athletes making 128x pay.
2. They're just throwing a ball back and forth. "Oh but they're generating economic surplus!" Napoleon Bonaparte once thought that by having people dig holes in the ground he was doing the same. . . think about how better the world would be if the people in the NFL industry (athletes + overhead) spent their talents in another field??
Bastiat's "What is Not Seen" beckons this: http://www.econlib.org/library/Bastiat/basEss1.html
3. All of the fans say 'We won!' No asshole, "They won." Good for them, they worked hard (at game..) and did well. You, on the other hand, sat on your ass and drank a lot of beer.
4. Some cities base the majority of their culture around these ridiculous customs. Take Louisville Kentucky (and Lexington Kentucky) for example........ IT is a RELIGION here. Speaking out against these teams is borderline heresy.
5. Die hard fans quote game/player stats like their number-crunching statisticians. Amongst the groups where sports is religion, these "statisticians" are revered.
Positive Economics: "What is"
Normative Economics: "What ought to be"
The majority of focus stays inside of positive economics because the "What is" analysis leads to a much higher amount objective results. It keeps the fucking "opinion" out of it (or at least attempts to at a much greater degree).
Case and points:
1. All economists are aware of going down the dead-dry rational rabbit hole; In fact, he points this out in the last paragraph by quoting one of the greatest ones.
2. Most fields lack the level of objectivity and mathematical proofing that economics contains; Bringing that power over to other fields is beneficial.
3. Making a blanket statement that all economists approach things in a blanket statement manner, in and of itself makes this article ridiculous.
Someone start a blog called "Learning Economics." The only people who oppose it so heavily are often the ones who don't understand it enough.
A developer with no experience in design has a higher chance of missing all of the features and nuances that make a sublime design kick ass (often the details a designer will ask for will be viewed as esoteric or anal..or esoterically anal).
Hybrids will do things like, look at illustrator...look at html5 canvas...and then combine the two into something awesome like Ai to Canvas. Hybrids will cut down your transition between design and development (which can be huge). Hybrids can cut down frictional labor costs. Hybrids can cross pollinate ideas between the two fields.
Case and point is that Hybrids are a class of their own. No, they may not have the extent of "depth" in their skill that a single focused dev or designer would, but that's because they have a "depth" in something different. And that "difference" is often innovative and far beyond what sticking to the "master of one" fallacy will do.
However, in the sense that nature/nurture (being born to a well off family that constantly provides opportunities) leads to more "merits" it technically is. Therefore the real problem is that it is so -bound- to income and class.
(and just because we have no explicit labels for class, if you think that such a notion is an "illusion" then you are living in a bubble.)
A child raised in an abusive home has a far lesser probability of success than a child raised in a supportive one. This indeed disbands the zeitgeist of meritocracy (anyone can do it), but reinforces the definition of it (success based on achieved merits).
Zeitgeist of Meritocracy !== Definition of Meritocracy !== Implementation of Meritocracy
We begin talking about users as "users" (a metric) instead of users (people). Likewise the same happens to a variety of the other attributes (i.e. interactions, etc). ROI this, reward plans, etc.
The best social media plans are the ones that don't lose the core component to any real marketing:
Empathy.
No, jQuery may not be around forever...but then again browsers might not be around forever. Should one be completely dependent on jQuery? Probably not. But should one discount the level of genius that's been input into something like jQuery? Sure, if you think that you can write something better than their team. And that brings me to my main point:
jQuery isn't just "Easier." In most cases, it's BETTER.
"Oh but I can write in ajax functionality that's faster/ follows standards/ etc."
Great, but while the edge case dev is doing that 100 others have released their product. And I honestly doubt that whatever the edge case developer has written is THAT much better than what the jQuery team has written.
The best software engineers, especially in a high-paced entrepreneur role, GET SHIT DONE.
The primary problem with copying the star trek computer is the user interaction. One of the biggest reasons all of the star trek's utilize a voice command computer is ...
For directing.
Otherwise when the crew entered a command, recorded a log, etc. they'd either always be shouting it out or making us watch / read the creation of text. It was quite brilliant from a directing perspective, but do you want everyone around knowing how many times you go to facebook/hacker news/gmail all the time? For that matter, personal log entries etc. Yes it has its place when you're in isolation, but its quite difficult when around others.
"...What it amounts to, economically, is compressing your working life into the smallest possible space. Instead of working at an ordinary rate for 40 years, you work like hell for four. And maybe end up with nothing-- though in that case it probably won't take four years."
I think it's also key to hit that if you enjoy it, then hell, why wouldn't you want to reminisce about it?
-Centralized resources (Because I doubt the average child will go to IRC channels let alone know what they are)
-Consistency in service and access (Because even if a kid did use IRC / Stack Overflow, they're not guaranteed an answer)
-Tolerance and willingness to teach (Cough Stack Overflow "Closed because question isn't a proper format"; Flame posts like "Wow, you're an idiot, never use X technique")
-Quality of resources (Graphics, video, demonstrations project files vs. sifting through disjointed posts)
-Physical, Local Community (If you want to teach a kid to swim, put him in a class with kids his age. Not in an IRC full of varying ages and no faces)
From an educational standpoint this makes perfect sense. From an open-source hacker's perspective maybe not. But that's why this isn't geared towards open-source hackers. It be fo teh children dawg.