That would be an Apple-imposed limitation

Yes, for sure it is, they are dong what they can. But it's also a security issue for applications to be able to intercept notifications for any app in the system... I think the Apple security choice in this case is a good one that protects users more than it limits them.

However for this specific problem I was thinking, why can't Pebble filter it out on the watch side? I think along with the notifications they get bundle ID's of the app the notification is from and so they could filter it out from the watch side.

That's not the only reason the Apple Watch is better, but it is a factor.

Does the iOS Pebble Time app not have this screen?

Not that I can tell, apps on IOS cannot control the routing of notifications.

one of the first review videos I watched for the Apple Watch complained that notifications were all-or-nothing; when did Apple begin allowing you to control that?

From launch of the device, you can also control what apps that have Apple Watch apps show up on the device also. I'm not sure how they could possibly miss it since "Notifications" is at the top level of the Apple Watch control app.

iOS doesn't allow Android-style widgets on the phone

iOS developers have been able to add custom widgets to the Today view (easily visible in lock screen) for some time now.

The Apple Watch is useful for quick interactions - in the context of a longer activity, where it makes sense to lock in the screen on raise to the current app.

Going forward your own remote app will make more sense when you can tie into a complication, so the user can just raise the wrist, tap on the complication showing current play time and then open the app to control. It's really easy to set up multiple watch faces you switch between so I see where users would set up task specific faces that would let them jump to things relevant to that task.

I have a Pebble Time, and an Apple Watch (I'm developing apps for both).

I tried using the Pebble Time exclusively for a week, but it's just not as useful as the watch...

The Apple Watch apps are better (even with the simpler API of WatchOS 1.0), and I am pretty sure there are more of them than Time apps.

The biggest issues though is the integration of the Apple Watch just makes it more useful - with the Pebble Time, any notification goes through to the watch. With the Apple Watch, I have carefully narrowed the set of notifications that actually reach the watch to a small number, so a notification really means something if it goes to the watch instead of my phone.

Also the Pebble Time screen is really, really hard to read under lots of normal conditions like being indoors, or in the dark... the backlight is not very strong. It's much easier to read the Apple Watch screen in full sun than it is to read the Time screen anywhere with dim lighting.

The Apple Watch is worth about 10x the Time because it's vastly more usable, especially so when WatchOS 2.0 apps come out.

I don't see it as a problem that every app maker does not have an Apple Watch app, because not every application NEEDS an Apple Watch app. The Apple watch is not "searching for a problem", it has some very specific things it does that solve problems better than the phone does. But because of the narrow focus not every app will need to be on the watch.

This isn't really a problem for StackOverflow. It's a problem for the developers of GCC and its libraries, and a policy problem for the overall GNU project in that Autotools is IMO too much of a mess to live, and is a barrier to participation as it stands. That's why I talk about it here instead of just submitting it as a bug report.

I would like to see someone come up with an alternative. That alternative is not CMake or Scons, etc., because those are build systems rather than systems that probe a platform for fine differences in the programming environment and produce a set of macro switches as output.

Yes, I can get a pre-built toolchain or a building kit, but it doesn't really solve the problem of not being able to build the current GCC with the right settings in its configure script and to use it with the right C library and kernel headers for my device. Should I modify any of those toolchain kits to do that, they'll come up with the same errors.

Besides devKitARM, there is the collection of toolchains mentioned here. I am getting most of my clues from the Emcraft toolchain, which is the only one for the SmartFusion. And we're great friends with Emcraft, but I want something a bit newer and a different build-tree style.

My last approach to the libstdc++ mailing list, here, was left unanswered. I figured out the problem behind that one, but it would have been nice to get some advice.

Autoconf doesn't have a --synclines flag, but I might be able to pass it in the M4 environment variable. I'll give it a try.

I've been configuring a toolchain for Algoram's programmable radio transceiver, which has a SmartFusion 2 containing a Cortex M3. Until today, I've been working with GCC 5.1. Building GCC for cross-compilation on a no-MMU, no-FP processor and a software platform that doesn't support shared libraries isn't trivial, though it should be. GCC has many configure scripts, one for each library that it builds and at least one for the compiler. You run across many configure issues which are difficult to debug. For example, the configure file, a macro-expanded shell script, doesn't have source code line numbers from its configure.ac file. Error messages do not in general indicate the actual problem, and are difficult to trace. Figuring out what to fix is far from trivial. I ended up not being able to use multilibs (which would have allowed me to build for FP processors like Cortex M4F as well), couldn't link in ISL, couldn't build libjava.

Some of these are beginner problems - I'm new to building cross-toolchains and have avoided autotools as much as possible before this project. But not all of them.

One would think that we could build a better system today than such voluminous M4 and shell. Perhaps basing it on a test framework might be the right approach.

First of all, this is really old news. SpaceShip One no longer flies and has been a museum piece for years, and Virgin's burned their bridges with Scaled Composites and thus made it a lot less likely that they will be able to mount a near space effort with the SpaceShip Two design.

Second, this is not an orbital re-entry system, because it's not well-suited for a heat shield and thus can't do the necessary atmospheric braking. It's just a system to get you back from high altitude suborbital flights.

including being hospitalized in Ghana

EJECT EJECT EJECT

Angry - if you are making the user angry, figure out why and make them less angry.

Read the actual patent, it's talking about available credit, not your actual bank balance. The only times banks are mentioned is in reference to them being a potential source of credit.

they've handed control of critical infrastructure to foreign nationals.

The worst part of that being that command and control of systems is now vastly more easy to either take control of, or simply disrupt if your goal is chaos.

What happens when the big earthquake hits and communications have gone to hell?