841 karma · joined November 27, 2020
Source? The article itself is quite short.
Google Maps' terrible UX has become a joke now. It mentions irrelevant details (e.g. emphasis on compass directions, which no modern person relies on) and uses esoteric language when plain English works (can't remember well, but things like "stay on right of the fork"). It just felt... badly designed, if not amateurish.
Apple Maps is far from perfect, but the cradle feels warmer.
But some books (Mere Christianity, The Case for Christ, The Believing Scientist, stuff by Garry Habermas, etc.), Wikipedia, the Bible (especially letters of Paul and historical analysis of them), Reddit, going to Church, taking Alpha course provided by it, talking with pastors, with Christians, random articles (e.g. https://faculty.som.yale.edu/jameschoi/whychrist/), thinking about things myself, etc.
> Another way to say this is that you should avoid type parameters until you notice that you are about the write the exact same code multiple times.
(The above will make design pattern astronauts shudder)
Unable to see it.
Surely I'm not the only one? Guys don't talk about this.
Overall this seems like straight out of 2003. The inconsistent border contrasts and weird burgundy red accent only strengthens the feeling of student side project and lack of taste (red does not convey trust).
Also that logo is ugly. It looks frail and awkwardly narrow without being harmonious (see e.g. the tiny gap between /|).
Edit: I just realized every category has a different accent color (compare e.g. HTML and CSS sections). What an absurd joke from Mozilla.
It's superior in every way: minimal, unconstrained, universal.