The reason fragments should be identifiable by users is because a user, not the content creator or the developer, will ultimately decide whether or not a portion of content is valuable or notable in some way.

Yes, the content creator should have the ability to decide how a page is generally divided, if they choose to do so. But the end user should not be restricted from linking to content fragments just because a developer couldn’t be bothered to add id attributes to every element on the page. And that’s besides the fact that it would be a waste of time for a developer to do that or to have to build a CMS that does it automatically.

The simple problem that I see with fragment identifiers is that their existence and functionality relies completely on the developer rather than the browser. Yes, the browser needs to read and interpret the identifier and identify the matching fragment. But if the developer doesn’t include any id attributes in the HTML of the page, then there will be no identifiable fragments. Do you see why this is a problem? Whether the developer has coded identifiers into the HTML has nothing to do with whether or not the page actually has fragments. Virtually every web page has fragments. In fact, sectioning content as defined in the HTML5 spec implies as much. Every element on the page that can contain content can theoretically be categorized as a “fragment”.

So why is it up to the developer (or content creator) to define whether or not a specific portion of the content can be linked to? When any page of content is created, there is no way of knowing which sections of the page are worthy of being identified.

Making effective use of this mechanism requires either control of the targeted document or generous creators of targeted documents who have liberally applied id attributes throughout a document.

That's something that has been bugging me too. I mean, it's fine if not everything is supported, but if everyone could agree on what is or should be supported then that would make a huge difference. But until then, it's going to be a struggle.

They don't look like advertisements. The second the recipient interprets your email as an ad, promotion, or sales pitch—and it does take just a second—its chances of being read or acted upon plummet towards zero. A plain email leads people to start reading it before jumping to conclusions.

Using margin is better ! If you use position:relative position:absolute You need understand correlative with div outside

From a practical point of view it's highly desirable to specify them to prevent page reflows as mentioned above. However those suggesting it should be in the html because of this are missing the fact browsers use css when building the page initially. If they didn't the page would have to be redrawn for floated elements, specified padding, margins etc.

Neither question nor answer appears to understand the notion of semantic HTML. Height and width are presentational attributes regardless of where you put them. For semantics we establish what the image means to content in the alt tag. I don't remember why it was so important to width/height in the HTML but I suspect it was in case you hit browsers without CSS rendering. It's not a semantics issue. If anything it thwarts separation of concerns to a degree.

CSS seems like the right place to put visual information. On the other hand, few would argue that image "src" should not be specified as an attribute and the height/width seem as tied to the binary image data as the "src" is.

yes, the excessive pleasantries are purely for irony/humor, i would normally get straight to the point

Yes, it shares the name and the look of those previous games, but it lacks the all-important creative heart of its predecessors, and ends up being a by-the-numbers affair that goes through the motions in a shallow attempt to turn Scribblenauts' unique premise into a multiplayer party game.

2 out of 3 people in my household do not find it easy to understand. Maybe that is is not representative, but keep in mind that something you yourself understand (or in this case think you understand) always seems easy.

Notice the use of Enter key after backslash in the sed command.

“Who cares? Let’s just go with the style-guide” — to which my response is that caring about the details is in the heart of much of our doings. Yes, this is not a major issue; def self.method is not even a code smell. Actually, that whole debate is on the verge of being incidental. Yet the learning process and the gained knowledge involved in understanding each choice is alone worth the discussion. Furthermore, I believe that the class << self notation echoes a better, more stable understanding of Ruby and Object Orientation in Ruby. Lastly, remember that style-guides may change or be altered (carefully, though!).

“It is less clear that way” — that is just arbitrary, even uninformed. There is nothing clearer about def self.method. As demonstrated earlier, once you grasp the true meaning of it, def self.method is actually more vague as it mixes scopes

You'll need to have paid more sales tax than state and local tax to take this deduction.

I actually think this is Not Constructive, since there's no absolute rule about which pairings can be joined into a single word or hyhenated, and it's pointless having "votes" here about each specific case. Follow a style guide if you have one, or search Google Books and copy whatever the majority do. Or just make your own decision.

It is also the first game I've seen whose icon for "mute" is not a crossed-out speaker/note, but a symbol for "pause" in musical notation...

send a courier straight from collection to delivery, point to point

Svelte is different in that by default most of your code is only going to run once; a console.log('foo') line in a component will only run when that component is first rendered.

The hierarchical structure of semantic fields can be mostly seen in hyponymy.

Some types exist as descriptions of objects, but not as tangible physical objects. One can show someone a particular bicycle, but cannot show someone, explicitly, the type "bicycle", as in "the bicycle is popular."

A semantic class contains words that share a semantic feature.

However, if the distinctions between the two concepts appear to be superficial, intentional conflation may be desirable for the sake of conciseness and recall

often in error

Dictionary writers list polysemes under the same entry; homonyms are defined separately.

Polysemy is thus distinct from homonymy—or homophony—which is an accidental similarity between two words (such as bear the animal, and the verb to bear); while homonymy is often a mere linguistic coincidence, polysemy is not.

Just? The meaning of the word is the reason we used the word.

It means "You're about to talk about words, but words don't matter."

vim-athena doesn't depend on or use any version of GTK+. If you use sudo apt-get build-dep vim-athena, it probably will install GTK+ and GNOME related libraries, because the vim-athena binary package is built from the same source package as vim and other vim-providing packages. In any case, you shouldn't need to build from source, as the binaries provided by vim-athena are already built against Athena and not against GTK+ or other graphical toolkits.

If you built vim against Qt rather than GTK+ and python-complete still isn't working, that suggests the problem isn't actually a consequence of trying to link to both GTK+2 and GTK+3.

This issue hasn’t been deemed a high enough priority to be fixed yet. It will be addressed one day, I’m sure. There are many issues in GLib which many people on the internet think are important.

After all, that’s why it’s in one repository to begin with right?

All too often, people get hung up on the wrong aspects of the Unix Philosophy, and miss the forest for the trees

It is about balancing the twin needs of writing good software, and writing any software at all.

As to opinions about the shortcomings of the language itself, or the standard run-times, it’s important to realize that every developer has a different background, different experience, different needs, temperament, values, and a slew of other cultural motivations and concerns — individual opinions will always be largely personal and, to some degree, non-technical in nature.

If you think that for every problem there is a simple and easy solution, either you don't understand what is a problem or you don't understand what is a solution.

Money could be good if it is spent to provide some of the above things. Money on it's own is hard because then it means I would have to spend time book-keeping and managing instead of programming.

There's no release of sprockets 4 so there's nothing to revert. Master branch is a WIP. I would recommend using Sprockets 3.

Generally, CSS selectors refer to markup or, in some cases, to element properties as set with scripting (client-side JavaScript), rather than user actions. For example, :empty matches element with empty content in markup; all input elements are unavoidably empty in this sense. The selector [value=""] tests whether the element has the value attribute in markup and has the empty string as its value. And :checked and :indeterminate are similar things. They are not affected by actual user input.

The selector [value=""] tests whether the element has the value attribute in markup and has the empty string as its value.

There are myriads of platformers around, it's an oversaturated market, and just like industrial designer Karim Rashid said about there being no excuse by this point to make an uncomfortable chair, there's no excuse by this point to make a boring patformer.

Knowing what your elements are lets browsers use sensible defaults for how they should look and behave. This means you have less customization work to do and are more likely to get consistent results in different browsers.

In case you need to verify that object is instance of particular class you have to check constructor with your particular class

the Activity component is the heart of TRB

it’s a bit as if the following wiring is applied to every task added via #step

The absence of a method name here is per design: this object does only one thing, and hence what it does is reflected in the class name.

Do you have collaborators who could have generated keys and sold them on their own? DIG's Steam keys and other stores' Steam keys must have some source, after all. Keys don't generate themselves, and only your accounts should be able to request them.This particular game was in Bunch Keys Indie Wizardry Bundle. I assume you had a proper contract for that. Maybe DIG or an intermediary bought 50-200 copies of it?

It isn't stealing because you or an associate must have generated and given them the keys in some way or another?Ideally you would ask a DIG bundle buyer to show you their key for your game, so you can figure out what key request batch it came from, and then you can scratch your head and wonder who you gave those keys to and what journey they took afterwards.

Using Track() with a new track semantic only makes sense when using the [:magnetic_to option] on other tasks.

Regardless of origin, allow/deny are simply clearer terms that does not require tracing the history of black/white as representations of that meaning. We can simply use the meaning directly.

17.3. Fixed point

exceptions are not exceptional, they represent expectable problems

In other words, once you've used Maybe you cannot hit nil with a missing method. This is remarkable because even &. doesn't save you from omitting || "No state" at the end of the computation. Basically, that's what they call "Type Safety".

Software architecture is about making fundamental structural choices that are costly to change once implemented.

In the telecommunications industry, on a conceptual level, value-added services add value to the standard service offering, spurring subscribers to use their phone more and allowing the operator to drive up their average revenue per user.

note that TRB source code modifications are not proprietary

Both kill with a job specifier and terminal signals send to the entire process group, so both the shell and sleep.

If any of the inputs are invalid, #execute won't be run.

There are times where it is useful to know whether a value was passed to run or the result of a filter default. In particular, it is useful when nil is an acceptable value.

main > h = {key_with_nil_value: nil}
=> {:key_with_nil_value=>nil}

main > h[:key_with_nil_value]
=> nil

main > h[:missing_key]  # this would be undefined in JavaScript (a useful distinction) rather than null, but in Ruby it's indistinguishable from the case where a nil value was actually explicitly _supplied_ by the caller/user
=> nil

# so we have to check for "missingness" ("undefinedness"?) differently in Ruby

main > h.key?(:key_with_nil_value)
=> true

main > h.key?(:missing_key)
=> false

When you run this interaction, two things will happen. First ActiveInteraction will type check your inputs. Then ActiveModel will validate them. If both of those are happy, it will be executed.

Inside the interaction, we could use #find instead of #find_by_id. That way we wouldn't need the #find_account! helper method in the controller because the error would bubble all the way up. However, you should try to avoid raising errors from interactions. If you do, you'll have to deal with raised exceptions as well as the validity of the outcome.

For this one we'll define a helper method to handle raising the correct errors. We have to do this because calling .run! would raise an ActiveInteraction::InvalidInteractionError instead of an ActiveRecord::RecordNotFound. That means Rails would render a 500 instead of a 404.

Amid awful suffering and deteriorating conditions, Texas Republicans decided to fight a culture war.

That's the whole point of an abstraction layer—to isolate your business logic from a subsystem's mechanics

My understanding of "programming to an interface" is different than what the question or the other answers suggest. Which is not to say that my understanding is correct, or that the things in the other answers aren't good ideas, just that they're not what I think of when I hear that term.

If the program was important enough, Microsoft might actually go ahead and add some hack to their implementation so the the program would continue to work, but the cost of that is increased complexity (with all the ensuing problems) of the Windows code. It also makes life extra-hard for the Wine people, because they try to implement the WinAPI as well, but they can only refer to the documentation for how to do this, which leads to many programs not working as they should because they (accidentally or intentionally) rely on some implementation detail.

Encapsulation is used to hide the values or state of a structured data object inside a class, preventing direct access to them by clients in a way that could expose hidden implementation details or violate state invariance maintained by the methods.

with ActiveForm-Rails, validations is the responsability of the form and not of the models. There is no need to synchronize errors from the form to the models and vice versa.

DSLs can be problematic for the user since the user has to manage state (e.g. am I supposed to call valid? first or update_attributes?). This is exactly why the #validate is the only method to change state in Reform.

we get the benefit of isolating request specific logic without cramming it into a ActiveRecord model that will be used in multiple controllers/actions

The press will tell you that "the concept" is great but the execution is bad. What should I tell you? The experience is shallow. The game is mediocre. But listen carefully, when a game is mediocre and can't even make you feel something then it's the worst kind of gaming. I will give it a 4 out of 10. You know, if this was a test in a school then this game should be marked D (someone answered a few questions, but overall missed the point). I understand that many people care about the "concept" of this game, but why if the experience is just... not here. I'm talking about the experience becaus We. The Revolution tried to be an actual experience. And it fails so badly.

the gameplay is meaningless and the devs just missed the point.

Unlike naming children, coding involves naming things on a daily basis. When you write code, naming things isn’t just hard, it’s a relentless demand for creativity. Fortunately, programmers are creative people.

If we renamed things more often, then it probably wouldn’t be so hard to name them in the first place.

This is funny because it’s unexpected. Cache invalidation sounds like a hard thing, while naming sounds more straightforward. The joke works because it violates our expectation that hard things should be technical. It’s also funny because it’s true.

So the hard and unsolvable problem becomes: how up-to-date do you really need to be?

After considering the value we place, and the tradeoffs we make, when it comes to knowing anything of significance, I think it becomes much easier to understand why cache invalidation is one of the hard problems in computer science

Now let me ask you, do you write JS for a single page application differently from a "traditional" web application? I sure hope you do! In a "traditional" application, you can get away with being sloppy because every time the user navigates to a new page, their browser destroys the DOM and the JavaScript context. SPAs, though, require a more thoughtful approach.

Technically, it isn’t a part of the comparison internally but it is a factor that some users care for.

When people talk about "beginner distros" they mean distros that are no hassle to get started, it doesnt mean they are somewhat inferior or less capable.

The key phrase here is “children of a grid container.” The specification defines the creation of a grid on the parent element, which child items can be positioned into. It doesn’t define any styling of that grid, not even going as far as to implement something like the column-rule property we have in Multi-column Layout. We style the child items, and not the grid itself, which leaves us needing to have an element of some sort to apply that style to.

Flexbox: content dictates layout

And if there's a suitable vulnerability, it might be possible to trigger it even without using <iframe>, <img> or <a> element, so it's not worth considering for this issue.

We can certainly explain the issues snap cause without using political or religious arguments. We did so in the documentation I linked to above.

Blocks Don’t Need 100% Width When we understand the difference between block-level elements and inline elements, we’ll know that a block element (such as a <div>, <p>, or <ul>, to name a few) will, by default expand to fit the width of its containing, or parent, element (minus any margins it has or padding its parent has).

It’s easy to think of 1fr as being “one part of the space in the grid container” when it is really one part of the space left over.

Making literal grids. Like X columns with Y gap between them homegrown framework stuff. grid-gap is wonderful, as gutters are the main pain point of grid systems.

No, this is not a duplicate of that linked question. I don't need to know "why it's a snap". I want to know how to use it without snap.

I think you’re missing the spirit behind the classic “centering is hard” complaint in a couple of places, which, at least for me, always comes back to not knowing the height of the elements.

The alternative is uncontrolled components, where form data is handled by the DOM itself.

This is a dynamic value because of hybrid devices which can use a mix of mouse and touch input.

if you set text-decoration: underline for all links then you will have to set text-decoration: none for special links which you don't need an underline.

From morn to night

Doubt is fled=stuck to their opinions

delight=bliss in not understanding?

opening morn=sunrise

truth new born

It’s all very well telling Canonical what to do, but someone needs to pay those developers for their time. It’s not free.

Repeatedly posting in this thread that there are problems, won’t actually get anything fixed.

The best place to let the developers know, and track those bugs is in the bug tracker. There are hundreds of forums online, all over the place in many languages. We can’t be expected to read all of them. Anyone with a launchpad ID (thus, anyone who has an account on this discourse instance) has the capability to file a bug. I’d strongly recommend doing so, for each specific issue. Taking just a few minutes to do that will help tremendously.

Just saying “snaps are slow” is not helpful to anyone. Because frankly, they’re not. Some might be, but others aren’t. Using blanket statements which are wildly inaccurate will not help your argument. Bring data to the discussion, not hearsay or hyperbole.

Progress is made of compromises, this implies that we have to consider not only disadvantages, but also the advantages. Advantages do very clearly outweigh disadvantages. This doesn’t mean it perfect, or that work shouldn’t continue to minimize and reduce the disadvantages, but just considering disadvantages is not the correct way.

Only folks who help package Chromium get to decide how Chromium gets packaged. This gives anyone two options: You can get involved and help package Chromium so you have a voice in the decision-making, or not.

We can lay blame for this semantic drift squarely at the feet of trend. Designers and developers eager to try the latest and greatest invite ambiguity in with outstretched arms. Leadership chases perceived value to stay relevant.

However, the W3C provides us with an important clue as to who is right: the download attribute.

The debate about whether a button or link should be used to download a file is a bit silly, as the whole purpose of a link has always been to download content. HTML is a file, and like all other files, it needs to be retrieved from a server and downloaded before it can be presented to a user. The difference between a Photoshop file, HTML, and other understood media files, is that a browser automatically displays the latter two. If one were to link to a Photoshop .psd file, the browser would initiate a document change to render the file, likely be all like, “lol wut?” and then just initiate the OS download prompt. The confusion seems to come from developers getting super literal with the “links go places, buttons perform actions.” Yes, that is true, but links don’t actually go anywhere. They retrieve information and download it. Buttons perform actions, but they don’t inherently “get” documents. While they can be used to get data, it’s often to change state of a current document, not to retrieve and render a new one. They can get data, in regards to the functionality of forms, but it continues to be within the context of updating a web document, not downloading an individual file. Long story short, the download attribute is unique to anchor links for a reason. download augments the inherent functionality of the link retrieving data. It side steps the attempt to render the file in the browser and instead says, “You know what? I’m just going to save this for later…”

It’s worth mentioning that Svelte limits its scope to being only a UI component framework. Like React, it provides the view layer, but it has more batteries included with its component-scoped CSS and extensible stores for state management. Others like Angular and Vue provide a more all-in-one solution with official routers, opinionated state management, CLIs, and more. Sapper is Svelte’s official app framework that adds routing, server-side rendering, code splitting, and some other essential app features, but it has no opinions about state management and beyond. Some devs prefer Svelte’s minimal approach that defers problems to userland, encouraging more innovation, choice, and fragmentation, and other devs prefer a more fully integrated toolkit with a well-supported happy path.

What pain point are you perceiving?

Trying to find a new day job is full-time work

There's a huge area of seemingly obvious user-centric products that don't exist simply because there isn't a working business model to support it.

No program is an island. Every program has to hook into the operating system at some point, if nothing else.

delete will only work on properties whose descriptor marks them as configurable.

Svelte by itself is great, but doing a complete PWA (with service workers, etc) that runs and scales on multiple devices with high quality app-like UI controls quickly gets complex. Flutter just provides much better tooling for that out of the box IMO. You are not molding a website into an app, you are just building an app. If I was building a relatively simple web app that is only meant to run on the web, then I might still prefer Svelte in some cases.

That’s how developers create buttons — they add padding to their div containers, not heights.

from my point of view, it is (by far) the best way, to build a layer on top https://github.com/material-components/material-components-web . This is also the path that the Angular Material team has taken, although they have already made a huge effort to create the components themselves.

is not required to point to "svelte": "src/main.html" if you're bundling for es, "module": "dist/main.mjs" would suffice. I mean, it's a good thing to provide a single file, not the whole sources again.

this in particular comes from the addressee

origin

Man, for some reason, I really like this answer. I recognize it's a bit more complicated, but it seems so useful. And given that I'm no bash expert, it leads me to believe that my logic is faulty, and there's something wrong with this methodology, otherwise, I feel others would have given it more praise. So, what's the problem with this function? Is there anything I should be looking out for here?

Assignments to $-prefixed variables require that the variable be a writable store, and will result in a call to the store's .set method.

const useEffect = (subscribe) => ({ subscribe })

I wondered about that. But as you mention, the control flow makes it tricky, because it's not really a template literal — it's a DSL. I thought perhaps it's better to have something that's explicitly different, than something a bit 'uncanny valley'.