9,368 Matching Annotations
  1. Aug 2020
    1. 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!
  2. Jul 2020
    1. OK is technically an acronym. It comes from the phrase "oll korrect," a humorous alteration of "all correct."

      Was "oll korrect" intended to be a humorous alteration of "all correct" or is it simply due to variations in language? (korrect looks a bit like German. What language could oll be?

    1. "that text has been removed from the official version on the Apache site." This itself is also not good. If you post "official" records but then quietly edit them over time, I have no choice but to assume bad faith in all the records I'm shown by you. Why should I believe anything Apache board members claim was "minuted" but which in fact it turns out they might have just edited into their records days, weeks or years later? One of the things I particularly watch for in modern news media (where no physical artefact captures whatever "mistakes" are published as once happened with newspapers) is whether when they inevitably correct a mistake they _acknowledge_ that or they instead just silently change things.
    1. Defamation law walks a fine line between the right to freedom of speech and the right of a person to avoid defamation. On one hand, a reasonable person should have free speech to talk about their experiences in a truthful manner without fear of a lawsuit if they say something mean, but true, about someone else. On the other hand, people have a right to not have false statements made that will damage their reputation.
    1. Controllers are free to develop methods to comply with this provision in a way that is fitting in theirdaily operations. At the same time, the duty to demonstrate that valid consent has been obtained bya controller, should not in itself lead to excessive amounts of additional data processing. This meansthat controllers should have enough data to show a link to the processing (to show consent wasobtained) but they shouldn’t be collecting any more information than necessary.
    2. t is up to the controller to prove that valid consent was obtained from the data subject. The GDPRdoes not prescribe exactly how this must be done. However, the controller must be able to prove thata data subject in a given case has consented. As long as a data processing activity in question lasts, the
    3. As mentioned earlier in these guidelines, it is very important that controllers assess the purposes forwhich data is actually processed and the lawful grounds on which it is based prior to collecting thedata. Often companies need personal data for several purposes, and the processing is based on morethan one lawful basis, e.g. customer data may be based on contract and consent. Hence, a withdrawalof consent does not mean a controller must erase data that are processed for a purpose that is basedon the performance of the contract with the data subject. Controllers should therefore be clear fromthe outset about which purpose applies to each element of data and which lawful basis is being reliedupon.
    4. In cases where the data subject withdraws his/her consent and the controller wishes to continue toprocess the personal data on another lawful basis, they cannot silently migrate from consent (which iswithdrawn) to this other lawful basis. Any change in the lawful basis for processing must be notified toa data subject in accordance with the information requirements in Articles 13 and 14 and under thegeneral principle of transparency.
    1. Some vendors may relay on legitimate interest instead of consent for the processing of personal data. The User Interface specifies if a specific vendor is relating on legitimate interest as legal basis, meaning that that vendor will process user’s data for the declared purposes without asking for their consent. The presence of vendors relying on legitimate interest is the reason why within the user interface, even if a user has switched on one specific purpose, not all vendors processing data for that purpose will be displayed as switched on. In fact, those vendors processing data for that specific purpose, relying only on legitimate interest will be displayed as switched off.
    1. Connected learning is realized when a young person is able to pursue a personal interest or passion with the support of friends and caring adults, and is in turn able to link this learning and interest to academic achievement, career success or civic engagement

      this is greatly connected to the RSA Animate video on what motivates us. Working together can help us find the purpose in what we are doing in the class.

    1. LoD = LoB + 1.645(SD low concentration sample)

      LoD is the lowest analyte concentration likely to be reliably distinguished from the LoB and at which detection is feasible. LoD is determined by utilising both the measured LoB and test replicates of a sample known to contain a low concentration of analyte.

      LoB is the highest apparent analyte concentration expected to be found when replicates of a blank sample containing no analyte are tested.

      LoB = meanblank + 1.645(SDblank)

    1. As Shneiderman claims, experienced users strongly desire the sense that they are in charge of the system and that the system responds to their actions. As designers, it is our duty to design the system to make users the initiators of actions rather than the responders.
    1. This model is the most flexible and open-ended of the four; your goal as an instructor is not to design a full-fledged semester of material, activities, and assessments. Rather, your goal is to work with your class to design and become a learning community, working collaboratively and individually towards your determined learning goals. For this to work you should have: a set of possible/preferred learning objectives for your classa library of course materials, preferably with as much as possible in digital formata suggested list of digital tools and technologies that you’re comfortable from with a list of possible assignment/project/assessment ideas that are related to your learning objectivesa willingness to experiment and invite your students into the teaching & learning process. At the onset of class you will need to facilitate a conversation among you and your students about how the class will unfold. This can be done in small groups f2f, via an online communication tool, or in a hybrid mix of both. As a community you should plan on addressing the following: what are our objectives as a learning community? what kind of work could we engage in to meet these objectives? what physical/virtual spaces would we like to work in? how/when do we want to meet in these spaces?how do we want to measure (assess) if an objective has been met?what rules and policies should govern our work? how will we work virtually and respect everyone’s boundaries and personal situations? how will we work f2f and respect public health recommendations and personal situations? You will probably need to spend at least the first 1-2 weeks answering these questions together and then designing a plan for your course. Make sure you and your students talk through various complications: what if the university’s policies about meeting f2f change? what if classes are forced to move entirely virtual/remote? what someone (students or professor!) gets sick?

      This is the one for me!!!!

    2. Finally, these are NOT meant to be comprehensive. Instead, imagine these models along a continuum of opportunity. Your challenge is to determine where your courses could fit between and among the proposals.  

      I'm wondering how much or how little faculty will need to change their curriculum/delivery depending on the various inevitable changes that we can't exactly predict will happen this school year. For those faculty member purposefully switching online, what changes have they made already, and what changes will become necessary in the near future?

    1. Creating and calling a default proc is a waste of time, and Cramming everything into one line using tortured constructs doesn't make the code more efficient--it just makes the code harder to understand.

      The nature of this "answer" is a comment in response to another answer. But because of the limitations SO puts on comments (very short length, no multi-line code snippets), comment feature could not actually be used, so this user resorted to "abusing" answer feature to post their comment instead.

      See

    1. Most of Algol's "special" characters (⊂, ≡, ␣, ×, ÷, ≤, ≥, ≠, ¬, ⊃, ≡, ∨, ∧, →, ↓, ↑, ⌊, ⌈, ⎩, ⎧, ⊥, ⏨, ¢, ○ and □) can be found on the IBM 2741 keyboard with the APL "golf-ball" print head inserted; these became available in the mid-1960s while ALGOL 68 was being drafted. These characters are also part of the Unicode standard and most of them are available in several popular fonts.
    1. Can explain concepts, principles, and processes by putting it their own words, teaching it to others, justifying their answers, and showing their reasoning.• Can interpret by making sense of data, text, and experience through images, analogies, stories, and models.• Can apply by effectively using and adapting what they know in new and complex contexts.• Demonstrate perspective by seeing the big picture and recognizing differ-ent points of view.• Display empathy by perceiving sensitively and walking in someone else’s shoes.• Have self-knowledge by showing meta-cognitive awareness, using productive habits of mind, and reflect-ing on the meaning of the learning and experience.

      These six facets are crucial for students to learn not only the facts related to a subject, but how to properly using analysis when learning and writing about the subject. This is especially crucial as technology has become more integrated into the classroom as well as the real world.

    2. Effective curriculum is planned backward from long-term, desired results through a three-stage design process (Desired Results, Evidence, and Learning Plan). This process helps avoid the common problems of treating the textbook as the curriculum rather than a resource, and activity-oriented teaching in which no clear priorities and purposes are apparent.

      This is extremely important as the trend is shifting toward more online learning during this pandemic. Therefore, we as teachers must think even greater as to how to properly integrate technology as a tool for classroom usage over the more traditional usage of materials such as textbook. As well, it will be important to measure how technology as a tool affects how students successfully analyze materials in the classroom

    1. e

      (commenting the end of McCaffrey's because we can't highlight the text):

      I'm debating Helva’s access to independence--her life also prescribed and assigned like Delphi's, even to the practice of metaphorical marriage with the scout. But she could still choose Jennan, she could mourn his loss, and she was well aware of what she was programmed not to overthink.

      Perhaps McCaffrey celebrates the ambiguity of fate alongside programming, and the humanity of hybridity--embodied in Helva’s own voice, both beyond human capability and deeply moving to the ear. Perhaps not?

      I love when mechanized parts can invoke the indescribable, like the feeling of a song.

  3. idioms.thefreedictionary.com idioms.thefreedictionary.com
    1. Your Show Of Shows

      From the Wikipedia page:

      Your Show of Shows is a live 90-minute variety show that was broadcast weekly in the United States on NBC from February 25, 1950, through June 5, 1954, featuring Sid Caesar and Imogene Coca. Other featured performers were Carl Reiner, Howard Morris, Bill Hayes, baritone Jack Russell (singer), Judy Johnson, The Hamilton Trio and the soprano Marguerite Piazza. José Ferrer made several guest appearances on the series.

      In 2002, Your Show of Shows was ranked #30 on TV Guide's 50 Greatest TV Shows of All Time.[1] In 2013, it was ranked #37 on TV Guide's 60 Best Series of All Time.[2]

      In 2013, Your Show of Shows was ranked #10 on Entertainment Weekly’s Top 100 Greatest TV Shows of All Time.

  4. Jun 2020
    1. Piketty’s account of the past 40 years is less a story of capital being unleashed (as most histories of neoliberalism have it) than of progressive ideologies running out of steam. The failure of communism played a crucial role in this, producing a new fatalism about the capacity of politics to deliver equality. Globalisation eroded national borders, while “hypercapitalism” delivered concentrations of wealth not witnessed since 1914. In the context of post-socialist ideological cynicism
    1. Prismatic gets a percentage of the revenue increase that it generates for publishers, while developers pay a flat monthly fee based on usage, Cross says. It’s still working out pricing for hedge fund API usage. (As a point of comparison, the revenue model for the old Prismatic was the same as the current model for publishers. “We just meant for it to be more like Adsense/Adwords where we ran all this in our own consumer products too,” Cross notes.)

      the plague of monetisation

    1. It is not customary in Rails to run the full test suite before pushing changes. The railties test suite in particular takes a long time, and takes an especially long time if the source code is mounted in /vagrant as happens in the recommended workflow with the rails-dev-box.As a compromise, test what your code obviously affects, and if the change is not in railties, run the whole test suite of the affected component. If all tests are passing, that's enough to propose your contribution.
    1. The EARN IT act turns Section 230 protection into a hypocritical bargaining chip. At a high level, what the bill proposes is a system where companies have to earn Section 230 protection by following a set of designed-by-committee “best practices” that are extraordinarily unlikely to allow end-to-end encryption. Anyone who doesn’t comply with these recommendations will lose their Section 230 protection.
    1. A year’s worth of cajoling back and forth has ultimately resulted in the EARN-IT bill wending its way through the U.S. system, a bill that, if passed, would see messaging services become legally responsible for the content on their platforms. While not mandating backdoors, per se, without some form of probes into message content, the argument runs that the punitive risks become unsurvivable.
    2. there’s a bill tiptoeing through the U.S. Congress that could inflict the backdoor virus that law enforcement agencies have been trying to inflict on encryption for years... The choice for tech companies comes down to weakening their own encryption and endangering the privacy and security of all their users, or foregoing protections and potentially facing liability in a wave of lawsuits.
    1. Once the platforms introduce backdoors, those arguing against such a move say, bad guys will inevitably steal the keys. Lawmakers have been clever. No mention of backdoors at all in the proposed legislation or the need to break encryption. If you transmit illegal or dangerous content, they argue, you will be held responsible. You decide how to do that. Clearly there are no options to some form of backdoor.
    1. Unlike Telegram, WhatsApp is not open source, so there’s no way for security researchers to easily check whether there are backdoors in its code. Not only does WhatsApp not publish its code, they do the exact opposite: WhatsApp deliberately obfuscates their apps’ binaries to make sure no one is able to study them thoroughly. 
  5. May 2020
    1. The task of "making a thing satisfying our needs" as a single responsibility is split into two parts "stating the properties of a thing, by virtue of which it would satisfy our needs" and "making a thing guaranteed to have the stated properties". Business data processing systems are sufficiently complicated to require such a separation of concerns and the suggestion that in that part of the computing world "scientific thought is a non-applicable luxury" puts the cart before the horse: the mess they are in has been caused by too much unscientific thought.

      Dijkstra suggested that instead of concerning ourselves with a software system that meets the user's needs, we should first separate our concerns.

      We should first concern ourselves with the user's needs and draw up careful specifications – properties to which the system should adhere should it satisfy the user's needs.

      With those specifications in hand we can concern ourselves with making a system guaranteed to have stated properties.

      The problem with this thinking, which the software industry would later discover, is that a user's needs cannot be accurately or completely determined before building the system. We learn more about what is needed by the process of building.

      This is an instance of the [[Separation of concerns]] not working.

      This is also why the industry has settled on a technique to build iteratively (Agile), always leaving the option open to change course.

    2. Some time ago I visited the computing center of a large research laboratory where they were expecting new computing equipment of such a radically different architecture, that my colleagues had concluded that a new programming language was needed for it if the potential concurrency were to be exploited to any appreciable degree. But they got their language design never started because they felt that their product should be so much like FORTRAN that the casual user would hardly notice the difference "for otherwise our users won't accept it". They circumvented the problem of explaining to their user community how the new equipment could be used at best advantage by failing to discover what they should explain. It was a rather depressing visit.... The proper technique is clearly to postpone the concerns for general acceptance until you have reached a result of such a quality that it deserves acceptance. It is the significance of your message that should justify the care that you give to its presentation, it may be its "unusualness" that makes extra care necessary.

      When you've developed an idea, you will typically want to communicate that idea so that it can be understood and used more generally. Dijkstra calls this reaching "general acceptance".

      To do so, you must communicate the idea in a way so that it can be properly understood and used. For certain ideas this becomes a challenging problem in and of itself.

      Many forgo this challenge, and instead of figuring out what new language they need to invent to most accurately communicate the idea, they use legacy language and end up communicating their idea less effectively, in pursuit of general acceptance.

      Dijkstra says that the proper way of dealing with this dilemma is to separate your concerns. You separate your concern of the solution from the concern of communicating the solution.

      When you've reached a solution that is of such high quality that it deserves communicating – and only then – do you concern yourself with its presentation.

    1. For the past few years, we've run GitLab.com as our free SaaS offering, featuring unlimited public and private repositories, unlimited contributors, and access to key features, like issue tracking, code review, CI, and wikis. None of those things are changing! We're committed to providing an integrated solution that supports the entire software development lifecycle at a price where everyone can contribute. So what's changing? Over time, the usage of GitLab.com has grown significantly to the point where we now have over two million projects hosted on GitLab.com and have seen a 16x increase in CI usage over the last year.