You are misunderstanding the situation. The safari logo is a mess, we know what it means because we've seen the big res version. For a designer, this means that color can get in the way when pixels are limited and it makes then aware that too much detail can result in a visual mess, the solution is to create a logo that can work in monochrome and to make the necessary parts of the logo more prominent.
The safari logo removed the letters and focused on the compass metaphor. On Android, notification icons are monochrome, so this implies the app logo should also work in monochrome. What this all means is that a Designer is more likely to start with a monochrome and low detail logo icon and then start adding details if necessary, because removing detail is more difficult than adding.
I don't think the picture you sent of Android 12 is actually from Android 12, at least I think it is from Samsung due to the icon colors, not AOSP. I really hate Samsung's implementation of Material Design so I will not defend them, because it really sucks.
I was pointing out that even in the old iPhone, the actual division of items were made with colors and outlines, not with gradients, which are not great to actually create UIs
This is purely speculation on my part after using Material Design 3 for an App Redesign, but I think the actual Material You system probably started as a way to help developers get a color palette. Material Design 1 and 2 required the devs to actually code the colors(or get the palette from a website) and sometimes this resulted in weird combinations, Google simplified the process so devs can just add 3/4 colors and it is harmonized.
At some point they figured out it would be useful to have the seed be a dynamic image, like the new media stream controls on the quick settings which use the colors of the album cover. If there is already a tool go generate a palette from a picture, adding a way to generate the palette from the user wallpaper is a nice bonus.
Tl;dr: I think Material You is a bonus from the development and streamlining of Material Design color palette. As well as a greater understanding that designing with saturation is better than with colors due to the existence of color blind people.
The only colors that have a contrast issue in Material Design 3 is actually the surface container colors, but they are not meant to be used together without another means of separation, so it is fine
It doesn't stop working per se, but it starts looking... weird.
Take for instance this screenshot, I believe it is from an iPhone 1st gen, but I've never seen an iPhone so who knows.
You can see how the battery icon gradient is kinda weird close to the outlines.
The bottom area of the axis of the General icon is almost bleeding with the background
How the top of the Sounds, Brightness, Wallpaper and iPhone is starting to blend with the highlight.
And the Safari icon is a blurry mess.
Even here, you can see that the actual list items lack any sort of skeuomorphic design, being separated by an outline to improve visibility. Heck, even the status bar and the top app bar uses outlines to separate them from the main view, foregoing drop shadows.
Exactly. A 4k screen will have the same amount of DP as a 480p screen if both have the exact same size. Elements will appear smoother and more defined, like letters, on the 4k screen than they would on the 480p one, because the 4k display has more pixels per DP, but the actual number of DPs on screen will be the same.
Like, imagine you have a 1080p phone and a 4k Tablet that physically could fit 4 of those phone screens. The Tablet would have two times the amount of vertical and horizontal DPs than the phone, but each DP would correspond to the exact same amount of pixels, and the buttons would have the same real world size.
Oh wow, so a one-DP drop shadow scaled to 4K would be six whole pixels.
If, and only if, the screen size was the same. And even then it would be 10 pixels.
Gradients can scale, but if you are trying to use a big fancy gradient effect and the actual pixel size is, like, 1 pixel, then you lose all those effects and it looks weird. You can kinda see something similar with Apps icons losing visible detail and looking weird if they are too detailed.
IIRC Android actually has the minimum width/height of 360 DP, which is basically 360 pixels (or it was 320?)
Mostly variable screen size and resolution.
Google created a system called DP (not DPI, or PPI), or density-independent pixels.
To keep it very short: The gist is that bigger resolution on the same screen size just allows better clarity, but doesn't change the size of elements in relation to the physical world. So a button would have the same real-world size on a 720p device or a 1080p one (assuming the screen size is the same), which is desired because with phones, the screen is the thing you use to control the device. App devs use DPs as the target, not a resolution itself, the system can handle how things are actually displayed.
This is fine for an interface that uses color as the way to differentiate elements, but it gets really weird when you use something less flat. Like, imagine you are using gradient and shadows to separate UI elements from each other, but you want it to have the same real world size, like Android. On some devices, the actual pixel size of the gradient can be too small to actually render properly so it looks blocky, or the pixel size is too large, and it looks weirdly over smooth.
Vão colocar sistema inteligente para permitir que prioriza vias que possuem ônibus chegando perto de semáforos fechados?
Hmm, the GUI is reasonable and easy to understand. I wonder if Gamescope can be changed while the game is running, so it could be put in the Quick Access menu
So one big disk for your Steam library and whatever you play might be slow on the first load but then as you play the game files gets promoted to the NVMe cache and perform mostly at NVMe speeds, and your loading screens are much shorter.
I really love/hate how you can immediately understand the practical application of new technologies through the use of games.
Yesn't?
Like, the whole point of a public traded company is that anyone can come in and give money to the company and, in turn, they get money when the company is doing well, so the money you've paid is, hopefully, not lost.
I don't know about you, but on paper, that sounds like bonds and basically every type of debt in existence.
The difference is the perpetual ownership of the company by shareholders. Consider someone who lent a company 20k, they now have an asset that grew immensely in value, it gives them money quarterly/yearly/whatever, AND they have decision power on the company, despite the fact that they have earned 100x what they lent.
Just changing the idea of stock to be something with an expiration date would remove most of the weirdness of the system, but at that point it isn't really a public-traded company, is it?
It makes translation more of a headache than it needs to be.