This is the one I personally prefer.
It's a little more advanced than other tools, but you can really make some cool stuff once you get familiar with it.
https://t.co/LHBZ8xmLrq
🔥 5 Awesome Design Tools 🔥
Have you been eyeing these cool cards and thumbnails that a lot of us are sharing?
Do you want to get started as well?
Here are 5 tools to get you going 👇 🧵
This is the one I personally prefer.
It's a little more advanced than other tools, but you can really make some cool stuff once you get familiar with it.
https://t.co/LHBZ8xmLrq
This is a super popular tool - if you're a beginner in graphic design, this tool is for you!
https://t.co/rBiCTPAOb2
With Carbon, you can make cool-looking small code snippets.
Their UI is a bit clunky, but you can configure your snippets in a broad range of different ways.
https://t.co/rmJdaDWfCO
Snappify is similar to Carbon, but has an overall better UX.
With Snappify, it's really easy to make beautiful looking snippets *fast*, even though it's a bit more limited in terms of customizability than Carbon.
https://t.co/nLpH5er2pE
Stencil is a great tool if you need to make creatives fast.
It's not nearly as advanced as Figma and Canva, but you'll have some cool-looking creatives ready in no time.
https://t.co/9jdNJxNi4f
More from All
You May Also Like
I just finished Eric Adler's The Battle of the Classics, and wanted to say something about Joel Christiansen's review linked below. I am not sure what motivates the review (I speculate a bit below), but it gives a very misleading impression of the book. 1/x
The meat of the criticism is that the history Adler gives is insufficiently critical. Adler describes a few figures who had a great influence on how the modern US university was formed. It's certainly critical: it focuses on the social Darwinism of these figures. 2/x
Other insinuations and suggestions in the review seem wildly off the mark, distorted, or inappropriate-- for example, that the book is clickbaity (it is scholarly) or conservative (hardly) or connected to the events at the Capitol (give me a break). 3/x
The core question: in what sense is classics inherently racist? Classics is old. On Adler's account, it begins in ancient Rome and is revived in the Renaissance. Slavery (Christiansen's primary concern) is also very old. Let's say classics is an education for slaveowners. 4/x
It's worth remembering that literacy itself is elite throughout most of this history. Literacy is, then, also the education of slaveowners. We can honor oral and musical traditions without denying that literacy is, generally, good. 5/x
As someone\u2019s who\u2019s read the book, this review strikes me as tremendously unfair. It mostly faults Adler for not writing the book the reviewer wishes he had! https://t.co/pqpt5Ziivj
— Teresa M. Bejan (@tmbejan) January 12, 2021
The meat of the criticism is that the history Adler gives is insufficiently critical. Adler describes a few figures who had a great influence on how the modern US university was formed. It's certainly critical: it focuses on the social Darwinism of these figures. 2/x
Other insinuations and suggestions in the review seem wildly off the mark, distorted, or inappropriate-- for example, that the book is clickbaity (it is scholarly) or conservative (hardly) or connected to the events at the Capitol (give me a break). 3/x
The core question: in what sense is classics inherently racist? Classics is old. On Adler's account, it begins in ancient Rome and is revived in the Renaissance. Slavery (Christiansen's primary concern) is also very old. Let's say classics is an education for slaveowners. 4/x
It's worth remembering that literacy itself is elite throughout most of this history. Literacy is, then, also the education of slaveowners. We can honor oral and musical traditions without denying that literacy is, generally, good. 5/x
