You do need to split your build into multiple projects governed by a reactor but you'll have that anyway as soon as you have more than 1 module. Then you just always build the reactor. Pretty much the same idea as gradle.

Sounds amazing in practice. And it is. Until you need to fix a 3 year old build that has some insane wizardry going on.

MacOS nannies you left and right, preventing you from doing things you want to do because Apple says no.

Windows historically didn't have such restrictions because it's a desktop operating system and not a gimped phone. They're slowly being added, but it takes time to overhaul an entire architecture while maintaining backwards compatibility (which MacOS also doesn't care about at all).

Linux is of course far more "hackable" but there aren't as many computer illiterates using it.

So... Kind of, yeah.

Then when a user "signs up" you do the same thing. If they sent a token via cookie, you associate this token with their auth in your database. If they somehow didn't have a token yet they were probably blocking cookies, but you can just generate a new one at that point.

If a user logs in again later while they already had a token you can choose to migrate all data from that token to their login token, so no data that was created prior to login gets lost.

The point is that there's essentially no difference between regular profiles and shadow profiles. Both are just profiles. And a profile can be authenticated with using its token, or using an associated auth provider.

Perhaps change the message to something like: "Your account has been rate limited. For more information email [...]"

And honestly, having people beg via email is just gross power tripping behavior.

You know what they say. "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear"

So I wonder what they're trying to hide from all of us. Probably all the backdoors and glaring security issues.

If I make a new account it'll be free of the limit until dang gets upset again.

> You're posting too fast. Please slow down. Thanks.

This is what we call "Put up or shut up". It's easy to bash someone for not wanting to spend many hours of their time to work they have no interest in, just because some third party is now demanding it. The change is absolutely arbitrary, also. There used to be no way to grant apps access to specific folders. This is when the app was written. This still works. Google's own apps work that way. But now Google has also implemented additional ways to access the filesystem, and they are demanding people who don't even work for them to rewrite their projects.

It would be understandable if they demanded new apps to adhere to these new policies. But blocking older apps, that were written when there literally wasn't an alternative available, to do a full rewrite or be banned from updating? Absurd.

---

Guess @dang decided to rate limit my account again so I can't post replies :-)

> Some token that every account gets generated? It's really not that much to ask honestly.

How is the user going to know this token when they visit the website on their laptop? Keep in mind that the Google requirement is that you link to this delete page from the play store, where the user is not authenticated with your app. You can't just generate an URL containing this token.

google could always contribute to the open source app to implement the features they wish to see, but instead of using their billions for good they'd rather use it for evil.