"Apple had asked the F.B.I. to issue its application for the tool under seal. But the government made it public, prompting Mr. Cook to go into bunker mode to draft a response, according to people privy to the discussions, who spoke on condition of anonymity. The result was the letter that Mr. Cook signed on Tuesday, where he argued that it set a “dangerous precedent” for a company to be forced to build tools for the government that weaken security."
I would qualify, I've done both servers and Android at Talkray. It's been a while since I have done both in the same day, but basically, if something broke on our Android client or server, I could jump in and get a fix, same goes for new features, and handle the server deployments.
That said, I'm happy that I don't have to do both. Oh, and right now, nobody's going to poach me. =)
That's interesting, I had not come across CompletableFuture yet, I'll need to dig in more, but the JavaDoc looks promising (if confusing). It sounds like RxJava may also handle the backpressure issue, where you provide threadpools for the execution and handling of an observable.
I haven't played with Guava, but I have used Otto a bit, and at one point wrote my own simple observer framework (which is slightly less work than implementing a Java Observer). As I wrote in the disclaimer, there are lots of ways of doing this. =)
I remember visiting the #coffee IRC channel years ago, and really enjoying being able to converse with people real-time on roasting, espresso, and everything coffee (or off-topic stuff). While the IRC channel still exists, I sort of figured that a Slack community for coffee was inevitable, and was a bit surprised that there wasn't one already. Anyways, I hope that some of you will come join me there.
Slimming down Play Services just punts on the problem for a while. My view is that Google needs to do two things with this:
1) Split up the Play Services client libraries.
2) Figure out some solution for developers hitting the 65K limit.
I'm sort of assuming that the solution would come in the form of a framework or tooling that we'd have to implement. Such a solution should allow us to build fully working apps with multiple dex files, with some decent documentation. It should also work fine for debug builds without proguard, and also without bumping build times up beyond a two minutes. What's more, we should be able to split off pieces that are defined in the manifest into secondary dex files, and fire intents at them.
That, to me, seems like a reasonable response to this problem by Google. The company I work for has been hitting the limit for the last few months, and some of our other dependencies are becoming more and more expensive with newer releases (things that our users actually like.) So far, we've been able to build with a stripped down Play Services jar, but I'm not terribly happy about that approach.
Regardless, I'm not going to blame Facebook for a problem that Google caused. If Facebook can find a solution, and tell the community how they did it, I'm all ears.
I disagree. Amateurs don't necessarily need pro tools, they need tools that help them do the job that they want to do better than either no tools, or poor tools. They also might get confused and put off by the steep learning curve offered by some pro tools. E.g. PhotoShop (I don't think I need to say more).
Just because something isn't a good fit for the pro or power user, doesn't mean that it doesn't have a place in the market, or couldn't be considered good or useful.
The "scam" is that in their upgrade offer, they're claiming to own my device, and then trying to sell it to me a second time. I think that "scam" is a fair word to describe this particular situation.
I have read their comments as to how it's a lease, but they did not make that clear in the Kickstarter campaign. They are relying on some things that may have been implied by what was written as opposed to any sort of explicit statement that the hardware was being leased. I also believe that it was an honest mistake on their part, but that it was a mistake. I think that they're relying on gullibility, and the actual discounts that come with the upgrade to sneak this by people.
I felt like it was important to point this out, since I don't think that there is any sense in which Space Monkey could be considered to be in the right here.
This is not a philosophical issue. The 'scam' in question is them trying to sell me a device that I already own, and is already in my possession. To me, that is a scam!
your case isn't air tight at all, several levels of the society I exist in ( and I suspect the society you exist in ) has solid precedents on the concepts of a lease.
It's a scam to you, and only you. No one would consider this a scam, and dragging a company acting in good faith through the mud because your philisophical issue with it is beyond childish. Grow up. If you want to argue, do it maturely.
The premise of your argument (that you own the Space Monkey device) is totally unfounded. In order to win this debate, you're going to need a stronger claim to ownership than "I thought I owned it, so I own it!"
"Apple had asked the F.B.I. to issue its application for the tool under seal. But the government made it public, prompting Mr. Cook to go into bunker mode to draft a response, according to people privy to the discussions, who spoke on condition of anonymity. The result was the letter that Mr. Cook signed on Tuesday, where he argued that it set a “dangerous precedent” for a company to be forced to build tools for the government that weaken security."