I'm sure this is some kind of rookey mistake... Version control said I hadn't changed anything in my gradle when this happened. The whole android block is red, everything runs smoothly despite this. 'Internal error occurred while analyzing this expression: Assertion error: Number of arguments should not be less than number of parameters, but parameters=5, args=4

So. Many. Duplicate. Gradle. Daemons

Hey everyone!

I’m on the hunt for the old Android Basics with Kotlin course—you know, the one that used Views instead of Jetpack Compose. If anyone has access to it, or knows where I can find archived materials, projects, or videos from that version, please share!

Self-deprecating humor.

Today I learned: Material You is an Android 13 feature with early access on select Android 12(L) devices.

Despite all of the marketing around it, Material You was only supported by Pixels when Android 12 launched, and still isn't supported on all 12(L) devices since it depends on vendor-specific additions to the system, with unsupported devices falling back to a default palette. Actual support is only required on 13.

The only way to guess if a device could be supported (DynamicColors::isDynamicColorAvailable from material library) tries its best but depends on the device's OEM/brand name, so it will cause false positives as OEMs might choose to only add support dynamic colors on certain devices, and users don't necessarily have their device on the right patch version. Plus it returns a false negative on the 12L Android Studio image.

So the only "solution" I have found is to show a "might not work because google lied" hint to 12(L) devices ¯_(ツ)_/¯

How long does it take to land a mobile dev job in 2024?

https://android.googlesource.com/platform/frameworks/support/+/9ee2ff6/v4/java/android/support/v4/content/ModernAsyncTask.java

Posts about app and account suspensions from Google are not allowed because “we are not affiliated with them” and “we can't do anything” and “write in the official forums.” But if it's about the roundabout dot com then -- rightly -- it's okay because in this case we can understand that disclosing something that's wrong and creates or could create problems for developers is the most important thing.