Should it only contain link* calls?

When should I use link, vs dir, vs. tree?

but I still have no idea if I'm writing this new file correctly.

Positively indicate valid input values Let users know a field has been entered correctly. The browser can give us this information through the :valid CSS selector:

See this post's corresponding GitHub Issue for related media, aggregated links, and other minutia.

Here's the last issue where source maps were discussed before the beta release.

Any idea @AaronLasseigne if this is mergeable?

and let us know how you are putting Hypothesis Help to good use

It is important to acknowledge that education is essentially a political activity.

Unfollow, στο τεύχος 14

Apparently this will be fixed in Firefox 69.

While this tutorial has content that we believe is of great benefit to our community, we have not yet tested or edited it to ensure you have an error-free learning experience. It's on our list, and we're working on it! You can help us out by using the "report an issue" button at the bottom of the tutorial.

Can this be merged please, this fixes a problem I have

please feel free to open an issue here on GitHub with questions/comments/improvements/etc

Discuss this post on the web:

These are valid comments. I think it is worth noting that svelte didn’t choose a non-javascript method for fun or because we think we should redesign the language. The additional constructs, for the most part, are there to allow svelte to more clearly work out exactly what is going on in the code in order to optimise. In short svelte needs a certain amount of information to do what it does and pure javascript is often difficult to analyse in this way. But I appreciate your concerns and comments and we try to take all feedback on board where we can. So thank you!

The exact form of the platform is yet to be finalized, and we want to involve you, the community, in helping to provide ideas and test the new contribution workflow!

Better community building: At the moment, MDN content edits are published instantly, and then reverted if they are not suitable. This is really bad for community relations. With a PR model, we can review edits and provide feedback, actually having conversations with contributors, building relationships with them, and helping them learn.

indipendently

I open this issue to announce that i'm actively working on a rewrite of this library to accomplish these goals:

It is hard to appreciate how important really fast (and reliable) hot reload can be during development, unless you have experienced it yourself. Developers report that it changes the way they create their apps, describing it as being like painting their app to life.

In fact, it’s at the core of the learning process and how the human brain learns.

In everyday life, feedback loops for each of us occur naturally–usually in the form, ‘When I do X, Y happens.’ That’s a kind of feedback loop in the learning process.

A feedback loop in learning is a cause-effect sequence where data (often in the form of an ‘event’) is responded to based on recognition of an outcome and that data is used to inform future decisions in similar or analogous situations.

What vaults this well past SNCF for me (setup time aside), is the limited company choice; it prevents a feedback loop of sorts where a game devolves into running each company in the ground.

Second, you have more frequent opportunities to get feedback. Instead of spending weeks hammering away in isolation, only to discover that you made some mistaken assumptions, you can get feedback at each intermediate stage. You become more adaptable and more accountable, because you are performing your work in public.

If you have further thoughts here, please participate in the discussion on the issue tracker: #256.

In Rust, we use the "No New Rationale" rule, which says that the decision to merge (or not merge) an RFC is based only on rationale that was presented and debated in public. This avoids accidents where the community feels blindsided by a decision.

I'd like to go with an RFC-based governance model (similar to Rust, Ember or Swift) that looks something like this: new features go through a public RFC that describes the motivation for the change, a detailed implementation description, a description on how to document or teach the change (for kpm, that would roughly be focused around how it affected the usual workflows), any drawbacks or alternatives, and any open questions that should be addressed before merging. the change is discussed until all of the relevant arguments have been debated and the arguments are starting to become repetitive (they "reach a steady state") the RFC goes into "final comment period", allowing people who weren't paying close attention to every proposal to have a chance to weigh in with new arguments. assuming no new arguments are presented, the RFC is merged by consensus of the core team and the feature is implemented. All changes, regardless of their source, go through this process, giving active community members who aren't on the core team an opportunity to participate directly in the future direction of the project. (both because of proposals they submit and ones from the core team that they contribute to)

Please don’t be shy to submit your project if you’re just starting out!

I am new to the ecosystem and really looking forward to feedback

The authors noted that instructive or process feedback types were rarely observed in the instructors’ messages to students.

When giving negative feedback, teachers can use the positive sandwich approach—starting and ending with a positive comment

But maybe this PR should still be merged until he finds time for that?

Sorry this sat for so long!

There is this black hole syndrome where you spend hours working on something and get no feedback.

It's really useful if your PR references an issue where it is discussed ahead of time. In many cases, features are absent for a reason. For large changes, please create an RFC: https://github.com/sveltejs/rfcs

I like bundlers. Correction, I like fast bundlers. Bundlers that help me tighten the feedback loop and help me focus on the code. Not bundlers that make me doze off, waiting for the recompilation to finish, while my CPU fan sounds like an old hair dryer.

The present study demonstrated that there are differences between the quantity and quality of handwritten and electronic feedback

Course and Students

FWIW, I would have raised it earlier if I thought it would have made a difference.

This means that while groups can generate high levels of solidarity, which can in principle be put to powerful political effect, it also becomes harder to express disagreement within the group. If, for example, an outspoken and popular member of a neighbourhood WhatsApp group begins to circulate misinformation about health risks, the general urge to maintain solidarity means that their messages are likely to be met with approval and thanks. When a claim or piece of content shows up in a group, there may be many members who view it as dubious; the question is whether they have the confidence to say as much. Meanwhile, the less sceptical can simply forward it on. It’s not hard, then, to understand why WhatsApp is a powerful distributor of “fake news” and conspiracy theories.

I honestly don't know what you find unclear about this question. I think you initially misread. I edited out your title change because it wasn't what I'd intended and it misled others. I edited in two more sections to clarify. The last section makes it as clear as I can: A single question provokes 1 of 3 responses (not necessarily answers). To chose between them I need to understand acceptable scope of both question and answers. Yes this topic is a muddy one, that's why I'm asking! I want others to help me clarify the unclear!

Your comments are welcome.

But even that “minute” affects my feedback loop (see Justin Searls talk) and wastes my time.

Just as journalists should be able to write about anything they want, comedians should be able to do the same and tell jokes about anything they please

Note that we are not making the common argument that making new tools can lead to new subject matter insights for the toolmaker, and vice versa. This is correct, but is much weaker than what we are saying. Rather: making new tools can lead to new subject matter insights for humanity as a whole (i.e., significant original research insights), and vice versa, and this would ideally be a rapidly-turning loop to develop the most transformative tools.

Most people think you build the product then you market it. Thinking in loops means you build the marketing into the product. The product doesn't precede the marketing. The product is the marketing.

Future keyword improvements are being discussed in our epic for improving rules, where anyone can add suggestions or requests.

Edit this page Request docs changes

Help & feedback Docs Edit this page to fix an error or add an improvement in a merge request Create an issue to suggest an improvement to this doc Show and post comments to review and give feedback on this doc

One huge advantage to scaling up is that you’ll get far more feedback for your Insight through making process. It’s true that Effective system design requires insights drawn from serious contexts of use, but it’s possible to create small-scale serious contexts of use which will allow you to answer many core questions about your system.

Ericsson claims (2016, p. 98) that there is no deliberate practice possible for knowledge work because there are no objective criteria (so, poor feedback), because the skills aren’t clearly defined, and because techniques for focused skill improvement in these domains aren’t known.

There are many other factors that also aren't obvious so as much as suggestions for improvements are very welcomed, please keep in mind that they may not work in the broader sense of what's required to run this project.

I'll get a gazillion suggestions of how I could do this differently. Every single time I talk about the mechanics of how I've built something I always do

Don't be discouraged when you get feedback about a method that isn't all sunshine and roses. Facets has been around long enough now that it needs to maintain a certain degree of quality control, and that means serious discernment about what goes into the library. That includes having in depth discussions the merits of methods, even about the best name for a method --even if the functionality has been accepted the name may not.

Thisprovidesthestudentwithanexperienceakintosittingnexttotheinstructorinhisorherofficewhilegoingthroughtheassignment

Anumberofstudieshavedemonstratedthebenefitsofvoicefeedbackforstudents.Butfacultyneednotstopthere.Theproliferationofinexpensivescreencastingsoftwaremakesiteasyforfacultytodeliverscreencastedfeedbacktostudents

I especially welcome, and enjoy, intelligent disagreement.

Request features

As part of the beta program, if you or someone on your team can give us quick feedback every 1-2 weeks, we'll keep extending your free trial (normally 2 weeks) indefinitely!

Collaboration is not consensus When collaborating it is always important to stay above radar and work transparently, but collaboration is not consensus. You don't need to ask people for their input, and they shouldn't ask you "Why didn't you ask me?" You don't have to wait for people to provide input, if you did ask them. We believe in permissionless innovation- you don't need to involve people but everyone can contribute. This is core to how we iterate, since we want smaller teams moving quickly rather than large teams achieving consensus slowly.

We do the smallest thing possible and get it out as quickly as possible.

We should counteract that by having short toes and feel comfortable letting others contribute to our domain.

Give negative feedback in the smallest setting possible.

it is worth opening a merge request with the minimal viable change instead of opening an issue encouraging open feedback on the problem without proposing any specific change directly.

Receiving Feedback

happy to PR given consensus

We check in our code at the entry point of a pipeline, version control (Git and Github in our case), and then it’s taken through a series of steps aimed at assuring quality and lowering risk of releases. Automation helps us keep these steps out of our way while maintaining control through fast feedback loops (context-switching is our enemy). If any step of the pipeline breaks (or fails) we want to be alerted in our communication channel of choice (in our case Slack), and it needs to happen as quickly as possible while we’re in the right context.

Feedback needs to be specific in nature, as well as confirmatory and corrective. This way the learners know what they did right and wrong.

You can contact me via anything listed in the Contact section - preferably E-Mail or Matrix. Other places to give feedback are GitHub (Issues, Stars, Following) and Google Play.

To Collaborate With My Peers

We have ideas about what we will build next for Cycle Analytics but we'd love to hear your thoughts. You can follow and contribute to the discussion on this issue.

As you know, we ship the smallest thing to provide initial value and then we learn from your feedback and continue to improve the feature over time.

I don't want to bet more time on it without user feedback

feedback cycle

F = ma qüvvənin obyektə necə təsir etdiyini izah edir, bu təsirin baş vermə səbəblərini yox. Təkamül nəzəriyyəsi (orijinal adı ilə desək, təbii seçmə nəzəriyyəsi) isə təbiətdə müşahidə olunan fenomenlərin səbəb mexanizmlərini açıqlayır.

Terminologiya ilə başını ağrıtmaq istəməyənlər

qanunlar və nəzəriyyələr arasında səviyyə yox, kateqoriya fərqi var.

Çağdaş təkamül nəzəriyyəsi Darvininkindən xeyli fərqlənir. 20-ci əsrin əvvəllərində Mendel genetikası və Darvinizmin birləşməsi ilə “modern sintez” ortaya çıxdı. Bu nailiyyətin arxasında Dobrjanski, Fisher, Huxley kimi elm adamları dururdu, Darvin yox.

üzərindən keçdiyimiz çox məqam var.

təkzib olunsa

naturalistlər

19-cu əsrə qədər təkamül Dekart, Leybniz, Herber və hətta Darvinin babası Erasmus kimi bir çox intellektual tərəfindən müxtəlif formalarda müzakirə edilmişdi.

Söhbət dünyanın yaranması ilə bağlı miflərdən getmir (bunların tarixi daha qədimə dayansa da mövzumuzla bir o qədər də əlaqəli deyil). Təkamül fikrinin elmi müstəvidə ilk təhlili Empedokla aid edilir. O, ibtidai formada da olsa, insanlar da daxil olmaqla bütün canlıların mənşəyini izah etməyə çalışır.

Darvindən

İntihab

Xristian təməlləri sərt tənqidə məruz qaldı

the explicit nature of future improved systems would be highly affected by (expected) changes in our technology or in our understanding of the human being

evaluating the possible relevance of work and knowledge from existing fields and for assimilating whatever is relevant

giving the human the minute-by-minute services of a digital computer equipped with computer-driven cathode-ray-tube display, and (2) developing the new methods of thinking and working that allow the human to capitalize upon the computer's help.

that any one such improvement can be expected to trigger a chain of coordinating improvements

feedback conceptualization informed by sociocultural notions, in which students co-construct meaning from the teacher’s feedback comments through interaction over time, with each other, the teacher, and relevant resources

SurveyMonkey