I am looking forward to a wider release of google glass for reasons like this. I can't easily jump into my pocket and pull out my phone to film a cop without, probably, getting shot but to be able to have it ready to go with some sort of motion/voice activation... will be so great.

I understand where you are coming from but if I was at a bar and someone was wearing a Google glass I'd be pissed too. There are just some activities you would like to enjoy without feeling like there are eyes on you (yes there are security cameras in the bars). Hopefully the real dive bars won't see a glass patron for another year or so.

Why is this on here?

What is defined as work? I code for fun. I code at work. Where do we draw the line?

> The claims in a JWT are encoded as a JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) object

BRB going to the atm machine and putting in my pin number

I never understood the fascination with Helvetica. It looks nice, sure, but there has to be more to it than that.

Watch the documentary. Helvetica is like air, or water. It's the font when you choose don't want to choose a font, because It says absolutely nothing.

That's an opinion, not fact.

I'd say it's closer to vanilla: So versatile and distinct that it was elevated to ubiquity. Your average person would have a hard time telling you when helvetica was created or when vanilla ice cream was created. That's an achievement.

That's an opinion, not fact.

Never claimed it to be one.

In theory. In reality it's got a ton of cultural baggage.

Ubiquity is itself a message. Each font has a personality that effects the impression of a work. So there's no escaping a work sending no message at all, except by not meeting deadlines. :)

I never really understood the fascination with typography beyond a readability standard to be honest, but that's why i'm not a designer.

Do you code in comic sans?

I don't code in Comic Sans. I code in whatever the default font is for my editor.

As an experiment, I just tried shifting the editor's font to Comic Sans and writing some code. Did really feel any different to me. Obviously it didn't change any unit tests, but I didn't feel any subjective differences, either.

Oddly enough, since I didn't write down what the default font was, I'll probably be coding in Comic Sans for the foreseeable future. If this becomes an issue, I guess that I'll switch fonts, but, at the moment, I still don't understand what the big deal is.

For the record, I'm not trying to be snarky. I was really hoping that switching my editor to comic sans would enlighten me on the difference between using a "good" font and a "bad" font, but I still don't see it.

You said you only care about readability. But readability is one of the only reasons we code in "monospaced" fonts, because although they don't look as nice, it's very difficult to confuse capital I's with l's and 0's with O's.

Also surely you get the sense of informalness that comes from Comic Sans? Do you at least understand why it looks silly on something like a "DANGER, HIGH VOLTAGE" sign

>> You said you only care about readability.

Nope, he never said that. I did. And I use monospace fonts.

I understand the formality that is conveyed; I just don't care for that layer of information myself. I'd find it silly if I saw monospace typography at Disneyland or a children's book -- but from a readability standpoint I think i'd likely be impressed.

So you're happy to code in a non-monospaced font. I can't help but think you're being wilfully ignorant... or just being a contrarian. Either way, good luck.

Engineers tend to view fonts thru an engineering lens, instead of cultural or aesthetic points of view. So, often the number one feature of a font for us is symbol clarity. How easily can I distinguish between a 0 and O, and 1 and l, with no context (a test which most fonts fail). Many typographers or font enthusiasts don't care much about those distinctions because they can rely on context (programmers cannot).

So, many engineers I've come in contact with care deeply about their fonts, but view much of what happens in typography as a distraction.

This is great security for what it is. Probably enough to keep you 98% secure.

Which is still exactly 0% secure as far as I'm concerned.

All in all though - in general - I'll be more than happy to continue using iMessage and feel at peace. As a general rule, however, never send anything electronically that may screw you over later.

If you see security as boolean, you're going to have a rough time...

Security is as strong as the weakest link. If there is a weak link there's no security. So, it is boolean.

Any more fuzzy platitudes for us, Geee?

The best encryption we have today is still bound to time and technology. Without a threat model, it's pointless to discuss security. To the NSA, not much of anything is secure on the Internet. There is a lot you can do when you have total visibility into all traffic. But your psychotic girl/boyfriend who barely understands what Wi-Fi is? They probably won't be eavesdropping on your iMessages.

No, customers leave themselves vulnerable.

No, they bought a device that was secure, or least supposed to be. They didn't do anything to change that. If a flaw is discovered now that existed back then it should be addressed to recover to that state again.

Let's be honest: Apple is making money selling new hardware, so they have no incentive to provide support over a long period of time that does not generate new revenue. Nothing more, nothing less.

Exactly. I stated above that it is a user's fault for not keeping up to date and making poor technology choices.

There's no upgrade path on older computers (if you don't want to install Linux).

Yes there is. Buy a new computer. That is how Apple works. If a user had a problem with that, they should not have purchased an Apple product.

Users are responsible for their own (possibly poor/uninformed) choices.

... because they bought Apple :-)

How so? By not buying new PCs?

How would you use this? I'm racking my brain trying to figure out what this would be used for. I just shared my vagrant file.

Well, this came to my mind because I'm developing a new responsive web app and wanted to test it on both my iPhone and iPad. There are several ways around this but I guess this makes it so much easier.

Also, as noted, seems great to let your colleagues see what's going on with your work.

> I'm developing a new responsive web app and wanted to test it on both my iPhone and iPad.

This is already easily done just by configuring port forwarding from your host to your guest in your vagrantfile.

e.g.:

config.vm.network :forwarded_port, host: 8080, guest: 80

I'm not sure that's the way to do it. I mean, I do use forwarded ports on my projects and I also configure my private network for each one but at least on my current machine it doesn't allow outside access unless I mess with the router and the firewall. A little bit easier would be to configure a network as "public_network" on the Vagrantfile. I assume this works for most people but, again, my machine doesn't vagrant up if I have a public_network configured. I never tried to figure out why, it's not something I had to care about that much to be honest.

So, as you can see, if vagrant share works as announced it would make it much easier for me for that particular task.

We use ngrok (vagrant share alternative-ish) to test integration with third-party services that have to send requests to our system. Works great.

The idea is that you could have a remote coworker or a QA use your dev server to test things, review UI, etc.

So they can only get their job done if they are in the same timezone or if you don't happen to reboot your laptop? Those don't seem like great use cases.

Plus if you are at the point of QA/PM review of what you've done, the code has already been checked into source control. They could just as easily spin up their own VM with the Vagrantfile.

GP said dev server, not laptop. I think in that context it's reasonable.

I used Vagrant for CI builds for a while, and I would have liked the ability to automatically share an internal url to the environment so that when coworkers submitted code that broke the build, they would have a single link to follow to get access to the particular environment on the particular server that serviced their job.

Some vagrant envs are also somewhat complex to set up - I could use this for teaching people how to use things like this: https://github.com/stackforge/puppet_openstack_builder

But can't you do all the complex/difficult stuff for them so they just have to type "vagrant up"? What are some of the complexities involved in setting up a vagrant env?

You are vastly overestimating the technical abilities of the average QA person. "Just as easily spinning up their own VM with the Vagrantfile" assumes a significant base understanding of a lot of technologies.

I think you are vastly underestimating their abilities. You install git, virtual box, and vagrant. Clone the repo and type vagrant up. If they've never done it they can refer to the wiki page you typed up for everybody. I know every QA person at my workplace could easily do it.

I've found there's a broad categorization talent/skills in QA, but a lot of it boils down to this separation -> Able to do development related tasks (set up their own envs, run different versions of apps, etc.) or not.

Anecdotally, it also seems to correlate with how useful Developers usually find their peers.

> Countries that have extremely fast, cheap, and accessible Internet have made it a national priority to do so. They don’t listen to companies who think they can make more money by keeping speeds down and prices up.

I think it has to do more with the modern world building up their infrastructure much later than the United States did. Late to the game, in this case, isn't bad since you'd be using newer technology. The United States (government and corporations) that built the infrastructure years ago don't have a reason to upgrade. People are forced to continue using it.

> Who’s fault is the current lack of competition?

Government. Businesses have only one reason for existing - maximize profits. They will do anything to do so, which is great! But the problem is the "anything" portion.

I've come to the conclusion that, unfortunately, government regulation is necessary. For example, look at China and their lack of pollution regulation. Cities in the US might have got to that point if it weren't for regulations (in the 70s?).

Another problem that isn't covered in this article is the, generally, uncaring public but that is a rant for another time, I think.

>It’s cognitive dissonance at full strength. I feel you.