1,439 Matching Annotations
  1. Feb 2021
    1. So, the sad conclusion is: all problems must be resolved individually depending on a specific usage context. There’s no silver bullet to resolve all ZeroDivisionErrors once and for all. And again, I am not even covering complex IO flows with retry policies and expotential timeouts.
    1. The Quest for Truth

      The quest for Truth is everywhere and not limited to the economic topics linked here. This is just a topic that started a thought process where I had access to a convenient tool (Hypothesis) to bookmark my thoughts and research.

      Primary thought is: The Quest for Truth. Subcategories would provide a structured topic for the thought. In this case the subcategory would be: US Economy, Inflation

      The TRUTH is a concept comprised of inconsistencies and targets that frequently move.

      Targets (data, methods, people, time, semantics, agenda, demographic, motive, means, media, money, status) hold a position in time long enough to fulfill a purpose or agenda. Sometimes they don't consciously change, but history over time shines light and opens cracks in original narrative that leads to new truth's, real or imagined.

      Verifying and validating certain Truth is very difficult. Why is That?
    1. stolen love from the child and infant and made it the exclusive property of the adolescent and adult

      Love is not exclusive to adults and adolescents as there are many types of love. I do not believe it has been stolen but added to love in general.

    1. Why is all this interaction code better? Two reasons: One, you can reuse the FindAccount interaction in other places, like your API controller or a Resque task. And two, if you want to change how accounts are found, you only have to change one place.

      Pretty weak arguments though...

      1. We could just as easily used a plain object or module to extract this for easy reuse and having it in only one place (avoiding duplication).
    2. 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.

      True, but why couldn't it handle this for us?

    1. Microsoft has the advantage of exclusively serving Yahoo search traffic, powering several digital assistant voice searches, and the ability to target searchers with LinkedIn profile data such as company, job function, and industry.

      I also was curious when reading this about how relevant Microsoft ads are nowadays. I feel like everything these days is focused on Google or Google centered. When I use Safari on my iPhone, it takes me to Google search results. I don't think I have ever used Bing and I haven't used Yahoo in probably 10+ years. Is it beneficial for companies to still put effort into Microsoft? Or could this be a case by case thing depending on the size of the company. I feel like it wouldn't be very cost effective for a small business to put money into Microsoft ads since the majority of users use Google.

    1. Set your models free from the accepts_nested_attributes_for helper. Action Form provides an object-oriented approach to represent your forms by building a form object, rather than relying on Active Record internals for doing this.

      It seems that the primary/only goal/purpose was to provide a better alternative to ActiveRecord's accepts_nested_attributes_for.

      Unfortunately, this appears to be abandoned.

    1. Say you have software to keep track of your grocery list. In the 80's, this software would work against a command line and some flat files on floppy disk. Then you got a UI. Then you maybe put the list in the database. Later on it maybe moved to the cloud or mobile phones or facebook integration. If you designed your code specifically around the implementation (floppy disks and command lines) you would be ill-prepared for changes. If you designed your code around the interface (manipulating a grocery list) then the implementation is free to change.
    1. 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.

      But if you intend to save to a model after the form validates, then you can't escape the models' validations:

      either you check that the models pass their own validations ahead of time (like I want to do, and I think @mattheworiordan was wanting to do), or you have to accept that one of the following outcomes is possible/inevitable if the models' own validations fail:

      1. if you use object.save then it may silently fail to save
      2. if you use object.save then it will fail to save and raise an error

      Are either of those outcomes acceptable to you? To me, they seem not to be. Hence we must also check for / handle the models' validations. Hence we need a way to aggregate errors from both the form object (context-specific validations) and from the models (unconditional/invariant validations that should always be checked by the model), and present them to the user.

      What do you guys find to be the best way to accomplish that?

      I am interested to know what best practices you use / still use today after all these years. I keep finding myself running into this same problem/need, which is how I ended up looking for what the current options are for form objects today...

    2. The reason Reform does updating attributes and validation in the same step is because I wanna reduce public methods. This is to save users from having to remember state.

      I see what he means, but what would you call this (tag)? "have to remember state"? maybe "have to remember" is close enough

      Or maybe order is important / do things in the right order is all we need to describe the problem/need.

    1. 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.
    1. The non-determinism is why cache invalidation — and that other hard problem, naming things — are uniquely and intractably hard problems in computer science. Computers can perfectly solve deterministic problems. But they can’t predict when to invalidate a cache because, ultimately, we, the humans who design and build computational processes, can’t agree on when a cache needs to be invalidated.
    1. There is one situation where iframes are (almost) required: when the contents of the iframe is in a different domain, and you have to perform authentication or check cookies that are bound to that domain. It actually prevents security problems instead of creating them. For example, if you're writing a kind of plugin that can be used on any website, but the plugin has to authenticate on another domain, you could create a seamless iframe that runs and authenticates on the external domain.
  2. Jan 2021
    1. Ubuntu also supports ‘snap’ packages which are more suited for third-party applications and tools which evolve at their own speed, independently of Ubuntu. If you want to install a high-profile app like Skype or a toolchain like the latest version of Golang, you probably want the snap because it will give you fresher versions and more control of the specific major versions you want to track.
    1. If components gain the slot attribute, then it would be possible to implement the proposed behavior of <svelte:fragment /> by creating a component that has a default slot with out any wrappers. However, I think it's still a good idea to add <svelte:fragment /> so everyone who encounters this common use case doesn't have to come up with their own slightly different solutions.
    1. When there are imperfections, we rely on users and our active community to tell us how the software is not working correctly, so we can fix it. The way we do that, and have done for 15 years now, is via bug reports. Discussion is great, but detailed bug reports are better for letting developers know what’s wrong.
    1. They may skim books for what they’ll “need to know.” They’re less likely to wonder, say, “How can we be sure that’s true?” than to ask “Is this going to be on the test?”

      This is completely true! As a student we honestly do not care about anything, as long as our grade is an A. I hate that it is true, because sometimes as a student, I just want to really learn for a second. Although it is nearly impossible when pressured is applied based on a letter grade that may or may not affect one's life. This class is really helping realize that it is not me, is that pressure kills the beauty of learning.

  3. Dec 2020
    1. If only Santa Anna had not repealed the Constitution of 1824. If only Santa Anna had not dissolved the legislatures. If only Santa Anna had not killed every Texan prisoner. If only Santa Anna had not gone to sleep without posting a guard at San Jacinto. If only Santa Anna had done any of these things Texas would probably still be a Mexican state; however, Santa Anna did none of these things. In fact it was his failure to do any of these things that caused Texas to become an independent republic.

      This is good opinion/info to support my claim. If only Santa Anna had given mercy to the Texans, he could've used them against their side, and they could've helped him get more prisoners or win the revolution and continue his rein over Texas.

    2. At first Santa Anna's policy of execution carried the desired effect; all the Texans ran toward the American border (see map). However, his policy backfired. All the weak hearted Texan soldiers quit the army leaving only the hard core men.

      This is good to show how his execution of Texas soldiers wasn't working for him because everyone was willing to fight even harder, not going to die without a fight.

  4. Nov 2020
    1. It's super promising for web apps, just maybe not for web pages. I went from React to Svelte to Flutter for my current app project, and every step felt like a major upgrade.Flutter provides the best developer experience bar none, and I think it also has the potential to provide the best user experience. But probably only for PWAs, which users are likely to install anyway. Or other self-contained experiences, like Facebook games. It does have some Flash vibes, but is far more suitable for proper app development than Flash ever was while still feeling more like a normal website to the average user. It won't be the right choice for everything, but I believe it will be for a lot of things.
    1. @monkeythedev I am curious how do you "organize" your work - You forked https://github.com/hperrin/svelte-material-ui and https://github.com/hperrin/svelte-material-ui is not very active. Do you plan an independent project ? I hope the original author would return at some times, if not, i'll see
    1. Alexanderproposeshomesandofficesbedesignedandbuiltbytheireventualoccupants.Thesepeople,hereasons,knowbesttheirrequirementsforaparticularstructure.Weagree,andmakethesameargumentforcomputerprograms.Computerusersshouldwritetheirownprograms.KentBeck&WardCunningham,1987 [7]

      Users should program their own programs because they know their requirements the best.

      [7]: Beck, K. and Cunningham, W. Using pattern languages for object-oriented programs. Tektronix, Inc. Technical Report No. CR-87-43 (September 17, 1987), presented at OOPSLA-87 workshop on Specification and Design for Object-Oriented Programming. Available online at http://c2.com/doc/oopsla87.html (accessed 17 September 2009)

    1. The basic intuition is described well by the Shipman & Marshall paper: users enter information in a mostly informal fashion, and then formalize only later in the task when appropriate formalisms become clear and also (more) immediately useful.

      Incremental formalism

      Users enter information in an informal fashion. They only formalize later when the appropriate formalism becomes clear and/or immediately useful.

    2. It’s important to notice something about these examples of synthesis representations: they go quite a bit further than simply grouping or associating things (though that is an important start). They have some kind of formal semantic structure (otherwise known as formality) that specifies what entities exist, and what kinds of relations exist between the entities. This formal structure isn’t just for show: it’s what enables the kind of synthesis that really powers significant knowledge work! Formal structures unlock powerful forms of reasoning like conceptual combination, analogy, and causal reasoning.

      Formalisms enable synthesis to happen.

    1. 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.
    2. 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)
    1. will only apply up the chain

      Should this "up the chain" be "down the chain"?

      In terms of a tree, I think of the caller/consumer/thing that imports this file as "up" and the things that I call/import as "down".

      That is more consistent with a tree, but not a stack trace (or any stack), I suppose, which has most recently called thing at the top ("up"), and the consumer of that at the bottom ("down").

  5. Oct 2020
    1. Retagging the HTML/CSS questions to use html-heading seems the right thing to do. For the other uses, I don't have enough grounding in the geographic area to know whether the direction and bearing are replacements for heading. But the tag information for heading should be created and should firmly point at the other tags — at least until it is expunged.
    1. Yeah I see what you're saying. In my case, I had a group of classes that relied on each other but they were all part of one conceptual "module" so I made a new file that imports and exposes all of them. In that new file I put the imports in the right order and made sure no code accesses the classes except through the new interface.
    1. Doing so also means adding empty import statements to guarantee correct order of evaluation of modules (in ES modules, evaluation order is determined statically by the order of import declarations, whereas in CommonJS – and environments that simulate CommonJS by shipping a module loader, i.e. Browserify and Webpack – evaluation order is determined at runtime by the order in which require statements are encountered).

      Here: dynamic loading (libraries/functions) meaning: at run time

    2. Specifically, since Root, Rule and AtRule all extend Container, it's essential that Container is evaluated (and therefore, in the context of a Rollup bundle, included) first. In order to do this, input.js (which is the 'gateway' to all the PostCSS stuff) must import root.js, root.js must import rule.js before it imports container.js, and rule.js must import at-rule.js before it imports container.js. Having those imports ensures that container.js doesn't then try to place Root, Rule or AtRule ahead of itself in the bundle.
    1. trusktr herman willems • 2 years ago Haha. Maybe React should focus on a template-string syntax and follow standards (and provide options for pre-compiling in Webpack, etc).

      Well anywho, there's other projects now like hyperHTML, lit-html, etc, plus some really fast ones: https://www.stefankrause.ne...

      React seems a little old now (and the new Hooks API is also resource heavy).

      • Share ›  Michael Calkins trusktr • 4 years ago • edited That's a micro optimization. There isn't a big enough difference to matter unless you are building a game or something extraordinarily odd.

      • Share › −  trusktr Michael Calkins • 2 years ago True, it matters if you're re-rendering the template at 60fps (f.e. for animations, or for games). If you're just changing views one time (f.e. a URL route change), then 100ms won't hurt at all.

    1. perhaps, imo this would make more sense. but it would slow down Parcel significantly as packages who don't have a browserslist or something similar will all get compiled (and most packages actually do target commonjs, which makes this prob not such a good idea). Which unfortunately is way too many packages. It would be great if tools like babel actually enforced a similar pattern to Parcel and use browserlist file or package.json instead of allowing defining target env in babel. Or at least not encourage it.
  6. Sep 2020
    1. I took the same approach with _layout.svelte and not just for the svelte-apollo client. Except I put all of that setup into another module (setup.js) and imported from _layout. I just couldn't stomach having all that code actually in my _layout file. It's for layout, supposedly, but it's the only component that is a parent to the whole app.
    1. let:hovering={active}

      It seems like it should be the other way around:

      let:active={hovering}
      

      to make it look like a regular let assignment.

      It's only when you consider what/how let:hovering on its own means/works that it makes a bit more sense that it is the way it is. When it's on its own, it's a little clearer that it's saying to "make use of" an available slot prop having the given name. (Very much like bind, where the LHS is also the name of the prop we're getting the data from.) Obviously we have to identify which prop we're wanting to use/pull data from, so that seems like the most essential/main/only thing the name could be referring to. (Of course, as a shortcut (in this shorthand version), and for consistency, it also names the local variable with the same name, but it wouldn't have to.)

      Another even simpler way to remember / look at it:

      1. Everything on the left hand of an prop/attribute [arg] corresponds to something in the component/element that you're passing the [arg] to. Usually it's a prop that you're passing in, but in this case (and in the case of bind:) it's more like a prop that you're pulling out of that component, and attaching to. Either way, the name on the LHS always corresponds to an export let inside that named component.
      2. Everything on the right side corresponds to a name/variable in the local scope. Usually it passes the value of that variable, but in the case of a let: or bind: it actually "passes the variable by reference" (not the value) and associates that local variable with the LHS (the "remote" side).

      Another example is bind: You're actually binding the RHS to the value of the exported prop named on the LHS, but when you read it (until you get used to it?) it can look like it's saying bind a variable named LHS to the prop on the RHS.

    1. But this is only a halfway decent way to clarify that this is an external dependency, because the only way to resolve a peer dependency warning is to install react from npm—there's no way to notify npm that you resolve the dependency to a browser global. So peer dependencies should be avoided in favor of external declarations. Then Rollup will take care of warning about "unresolved dependencies", even if external declarations can't express a particular version range with which your library is compatible like peer dependencies can.

      Interesting. Didn't realize. From my perspective, I usually do install packages via npm, so wouldn't have known about this problem.

      npm and rollup both try to solve this problem but in different ways that apparently conflict? So if a lib author lists peerDependencies then it can cause problems for those getting lib via browser (CDN)? How come so many libs use it then? How come I've never heard of this problem before?

    1. It would be tiresome - and bloated - to include a class pass-through for every component or assigning custom properties (from the RFC linked) for all potential properties on every component, just in case it's gonna be used in layouts that requires it. Wrapping them in a wrapper div is certainly an option, but potentially creates 100s or 1000s (long lists, several lists etc.) of new elements in the DOM slowing down low-end devices.
    2. The RFC is more appropriate because it does not allow a parent to abritrarily control anything below it, that responsibility still relies on the component itself. Just because people have been passing classes round and overriding child styles for years doesn't mean it is a good choice and isn't something we wnat to encourage.
    1. You must: reference each element you are extending using refs or an id add code in your oncreate and ondestroy for each element you are extending, which could become quite a lot if you have a lot of elements needing extension (anchors, form inputs, etc.)
    2. This is where hooks/behaviors are a good idea. They clean up your component code a lot. Also, it helps a ton since you don't get create/destroy events for elements that are inside {{#if}} and {{#each}}. That could become very burdensome to try and add/remove functionality with elements as they are added/removed within a component.