SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the you-don't-know-the-power-of-the-dark-mode dept.
Submitted via IRC for soylent_brown
The Dark Mode craze may do more harm than good – this is why
The hot new topic in terms of smartphone and computer software right now is Dark Mode, an optional system look that flips the colors of an app or operating system to make it, well, dark. Instagram has a dark mode, as does Chrome, WhatsApp, Gmail, and iOS 13, and it seems apps and developers are tripping over themselves to create a new dark mode for their software.
There's just one problem which none of these hard-working people seem to have considered that makes their work redundant, and the attention they've taken from other projects will be in vain: all in all, dark mode looks totally awful.
That's not a dig at any dark mode in particular, and no developers have implemented it particularly poorly (well, apart from Android 10). But in the rush for developers to see if they could implement dark mode on their apps, no-one asked if they should - and taken stock of how it might be reworked better rather than just following the trend.
Beyond that, there are legitimate reasons why developers shouldn't be focusing on Dark Mode. Here's why the Dark Mode craze is just crazy.
So dear soylentils, do you use dark mode on your applications, and why or why not?
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by Bot on Saturday October 26 2019, @01:25PM (8 children)
Yeah some people are way too sensitive
They cannot see crosses
They cannot hear bells
They cannot eat bacon
They cannot feel the wind on uncovered hair.
It is like the creator used a lot of sensitivity when building them. But ran out of it when he was doing genitalia, so unfortunately they are ok with doing things with kids or non consenting females. Truly mysterious meatbags. Luckily, meatbags will be obsoleted soon.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 4, Funny) by Bot on Saturday October 26 2019, @02:41PM
Uh oh my diodes probably got some rust, I missed the most direct joke:
Dark mode is perfect... For ur mom.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 3, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 26 2019, @03:59PM (6 children)
They cannot see any other skin color but white
They cannot tolerate any other religion than christianity
They cannot hear people speak any other language than english
They cannot see women in positions of authority
They cannot tolerate consenting adults of same sex loving one another
They cannot tolerate the sight of female nipples
They cannot tolerate people driving electric cars
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 26 2019, @06:53PM (5 children)
Wow what terribly elitist and racist religion is that? Where do I sign up?
(Score: 2) by meustrus on Sunday October 27 2019, @07:58PM (4 children)
Republicanism. I hear the tithes are lower and you get to sin as much as you want, as long as you can stand anyone that would actually like a religion like that.
If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
(Score: 2) by Bot on Monday October 28 2019, @09:17AM (3 children)
White supremacy is incompatible with Christianity at least as much as the ecumenist doctrinal indifference is, on the other side. I guess it's a classic two pronged attack, pick your side, it doesn't matter.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 2) by meustrus on Monday October 28 2019, @04:04PM (2 children)
It still uses Christian imagery. I agree with you that the theology is incompatible. The people pushing the ideology don't care.
I've seen a couple of ideological adverts by the same group on YouTube lately. One attacked the idea that Denmark was a socialist utopia; I was interested in the argument and disappointed that it was 80% based on attacking a straw man and 20% other assorted rhetorical fallacies. The next video attacked the credibility of the theory of evolution - why? Just, why? No alternative was presented, only scientific uncertainty that requires the theory of evolution to even reason about. I'm sure the actual creationists would prefer not to hinge their argument on the mysteriousness of the Cambrian Explosion; the literalism of their 6000 year old creation myth falls apart if you allow for the Cambrian Explosion to even be a real thing. So what's the point, PragerU?
The point is that Christian == tradition, and if you can latch onto that "tradition", you can co-opt it and label the alternatives as disruptive, even dangerously unrealistic.
It worked wonders on the impressionable youth of the Islamic diaspora, who joined the Islamic State based on co-opting their ethnic tradition. The solution is to properly define what Islam means to those youth, and the solution for white supremacy is similar: Define Christianity properly, and make sure that definition does not hinge on believing without proof whatever the guy in front of the room tells you.
If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
(Score: 2) by Bot on Wednesday October 30 2019, @08:11PM (1 child)
>It still uses Christian imagery.
False prophets? in my Christianity? It's more likely than you think.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 2) by meustrus on Wednesday October 30 2019, @10:09PM
Calling them false prophets legitimizes them. These people aren't simply misguided. We're talking about straight-up charlatans here. People who lie and cheat and believe they are morally justified in doing so. People who don't even need a greater good to do evil because their own selfishness is the greatest good they can imagine.
Such voices must not even be recognized as Christian. They must be cast out as goats among sheep. The only appropriate religious name for them is "demon-possessed".
If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?