The seeming luxury of having multiple words to choose from is not sufficient to offset the lingering fear that no matter which word you pick it will be the wrong one, causing people to silently laugh at you and judge both you and your grammar school teachers

A Mistake of Wrong Fuelling Could Cause Big Damage

If we can see how some of the basic assumptions that we bring to the development of computing technologies lead us away from improvement in our ability to solve problems collectively, we can reexamine those assumptions and chart a different course.

What's wrong with this?

book that's sort of making its rounds in the climate World these days um by this author Brett Christopher I foret what it's called 00:31:25 um oh what is it called oh the price is wrong yeah about how Renewables yeah they're cheaper than ever which people always point at those graphs but just because of the way that you know utilities are set up and the energy system works they're not profitable and 00:31:38 they won't be in the near term

here are so many loopholes in our current top AI Labs that we could literally have people who are infiltrating these companies and there's no way to even know what's going on because we don't have any true security 00:37:41 protocols and the problem is is that it's not being treated as seriously as it is

if we didn't have people who were wrong we wouldn't be where we are

You can whip up cover letters in no time using ChatGPT! Just paste in your resume text, position title and company name and ask it to write a cover letter for you. It summarizes your skills really well in context of the position and company. Such a time saver. Like everything else AI does lately, it's absurdly good and in Ryan Reynold's words, "mildly terrifying." I have no idea who actually reads cover letters

most prolific taggers,those resources were cut in 2015.

I reported this as a bug until proven otherwise

However, after finding the magic number, unzip does not check if the comment length correctly describes the comment that must follow. Rather, unzip only checks to make sure the comment length is small enough to not cause an out-of-bounds read beyond the end of the zip file. This means that unzip tolerates arbitrary data append to the end of a zipfile without even so much as a warning. The zip file spec does not allow this arbitrary data

when we get our story wrong we get our future wrong

No author WANTS to mark emphasis or important text.

this God is very clearly a 00:09:27 human invention now it doesn't mean it's necessarily bad and it doesn't certainly doesn't mean it's unimportant the fictional stories humans invent are some of the most powerful forces in history 00:09:40 and very often they can also be positive forces there is nothing inherently wrong in fiction

So then they put it into lib only to find that they have to manually require it. Then later realize that this also means they now have to reboot their server any time they change the file (after a painfully long debugging time of "why what aren't my changes working?", because their lib folder classes are now second-class citizens). Then they go down the rabbit hole of adding lib to the autoload paths, which burns them because rake tasks then all get eager loaded in production. Then they inevitably realize anything inside app is autoloaded and make an app/lib per Xavier's advice.

I think the symmetry of the naming between lib and app/lib will lead a fresh Rails developer to seek out the answer to “Why are there two lib directories?", and they will become illuminated. And it will prevent them from seeking the answer to “How do I autoload lib?” which will start them on a rough path that leads to me advising them to undo it.

The story starts with the creation of the world, and ends with Moses dying on the wrong side of the Jordan and being buried in an unmarked grave.

There has also been special debate about the right way to think of development in infancy.

structure

power does corrupt. We have plenty of evidence that it changes your psychology, it changes your neuroscience, it changes your brain, but it's only a small part of the story. And the much more interesting part of the story is how people interact with systems and why we end up with the wrong people in charge.

m <- floor(T^(1/3)) Using rule of thumb, the m is 8

Most of them are, in general, moving in the right direction. They just aren’t aggressive enough yet to be consistent with the kind of transformative social change required to achieve the 1.5 C target.

Result of lots of searching on net is that pre-checkout hook in git is not implemented yet. The reason can be: There is no practical use. I do have a case It can be achieved by any other means. Please tell me how? Its too difficult to implement. I don't think this is a valid reason

Regex can do many things, but unbaking a cake isn't one of them.

I've worked with and have helped maintain paranoia for a while. I'm convinced it does the wrong thing for most cases. Paranoia and acts_as_paranoid both attempt to emulate deletes by setting a column and adding a default scope on the model. This requires some ActiveRecord hackery, and leads to some surprising and awkward behaviour.

Thinking it might be about performance is plain wrong for at least two reasons. Please read this info about the performance aspect

Economists explain that markets work bestwith “perfect information.” And visibilityfeeds this market by translating and sharingskills. But the price of transparency in themodern age is invaded privacy, as well as biasinherent in automated products and services

Even when reading a book,the goal-oriented nature and intention of reading is paramount.6

Let’s say the recipient is considering unsubscribing. He or she may be too busy to search through the email to find the unsubscribe link, so he or she just clicks “Report as SPAM” to stop the emails from coming. This is the last thing any marketer wants to see happen. It negatively impacts sender reputation, requiring extra work to improve email deliverability. With the list-unsubscribe header, you will avoid getting into this kind of trouble in the first place.

Testing frameworks often introduce their own abstractions for e.g. evaluation order, data validation, reporting, scope, code reuse, state, and lifecycle. In my experience, these abstractions are always needlessly different from (and inferior to) related abstractions provided by the language itself.

But these two questions are interwoven (and you’ll find many answers to the wrong question in the Answers section).

Making MoneySerializer reloadable would be confusing, because reloading an edited version would have no effect on that class object stored in Active Job.

Indeed, if MoneySerializer was reloadable, starting with Rails 7 such initializer would raise a NameError.

Unless new evidence comes to bear that refutes the basic tenets of this analysis

Same here, and I think this is not correct. The more I think about it, the more I am convinced it's a wrong mental model.

If and when you need some kind of behaviour that waits for things, wait_until is a giant big sledgehammer. There are more fine grained, sophisticated tools built into Capybara, and I want you to learn about them, because those are some of the best features of the library. And when the built in tools aren’t enough, there are more sophisticated tools available than that clunky hammer. So hopefully the removal of wait_until encourages you to write better tests.

So if I just forward the cookie header (which contains the access-token), wouldn't that be just what I am not supposed to do. I mean what's the point of using 'HttpOnly' flag if I return the token to the client-side js on every request.

Update API usage of the view helpers by changing javascript_packs_with_chunks_tag and stylesheet_packs_with_chunks_tag to javascript_pack_tag and stylesheet_pack_tag. Ensure that your layouts and views will only have at most one call to javascript_pack_tag or stylesheet_pack_tag. You can now pass multiple bundles to these view helper methods.

I still don't understand the difference between a script and a module

Now consider we want to handle numbers in our known value set: const KNOWN_VALUES = Object.freeze(['a', 'b', 'c', 1, 2, 3]) function isKnownValue(input?: string | number) { return typeof(input) === 'string' && KNOWN_VALUES.includes(input) } Uh oh! This TypeScript compiles without errors, but it's not correct. Where as our original "naive" approach would have worked just fine. Why is that? Where is the breakdown here? It's because TypeScript's type system got in the way of the developer's initial intent. It caused us to change our code from what we intended to what it allowed. It was never the developer's intention to check that input was a string and a known value; the developer simply wanted to check whether input was a known value - but wasn't permitted to do so.

Please correct me if anything in there is incorrect!

There is always a way to work around that by doing expr as unknown as T, but it stops people making basic errors.

This works nicely wherever we show authors, but after we deploy to production, the folks from other parts of the world won’t get notified anymore about their songs. Mistakes like these are easy to make when using concerns.

Note that & is a line terminator like ; (write command& not command&;).

Stack-exchange is not teaching or education. It's just giving out answers for upvotes. Just like some tech support is about closing tickets.

Furthermore many of them are paid or rated by the number of tickets they close, not solutions. It's a bad recipe and unfortunately it has become the norm.

Because constants in Ruby aren't meant to be changed, Ruby discourages you from assigning to them in parts of code which might get executed more than once, such as inside methods.

Actually, I've decided to stop using labels for a while. A "bug" label gives the impression that someone else is going to fix the problem. We don't have enough volunteers for that (new contributors welcome!). I try to help people working on issues, though. I've spent many hours on this one.

If anything it thwarts separation of concerns to a degree.

Of course you must not use plain-text passwords and place them directly into scripts. You even must not use telnet protocol at all. And avoid ftp, too. I needn’t say why you should use ssh, instead, need I? And you also must not plug your fingers into 220 voltage AC-output. Telnet was chosen for examples as less harmless alternative, because it’s getting rare in real life, but it can show all basic functions of expect-like tools, even abilities to send passwords. BUT, you can use “Expect and Co” to do other things, I just show the direction.

The question on the title: replace space with new line The simple, quick, brute force solution is to do exactly that, replace all spaces with new lines:

However you're probably asking the wrong question. (Not necessarily, for example this might come up in a makefile.)

What I dislike from the achievements is the "Dialogue Skipper". I really don't like it because you are encouraging people just to skim or even skip it at all and not get interested with the story. I earned this achievement on a 2nd run but I had a friend who just skipped it all on her 1st try.What devs should encourage is for the gamers to have a lot of playing time on their game so they would recommend it to others and not just do it for the cards and uninstalling it afterwards.

Rather than rewarding the player for discovering a well-thought-out or ideal solution (by picking up coins), the developer tacked on a timer to a game with non-fluid controls. The player feels rushed to discover an elaborate solution.

Yes, you are right. That was a very bad workaround. Stubbing methods on NilClass can be compared to switching to dark side of force. Powerful but comes with a huge price. I highly don't recommend using my workaround from 1 year ago.

I suspect you aren't seeing much discussion because those who have a reasonable process in place, and do not consider this situation to be as bad as everyone would have you believe, tend not to comment on it as much.

This is a copy of the "AMD" document in the repo, kept here to maintain historical links. If this document differs from the one in the repo, the repo version is the correct one.

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

Yes, but honestly, and no offense intended, but I don't see the harm in these type questions, nor why some people are offended when they are asked. If I owed a website, I wouldn't mind it because it just creates more pages that can be indexed. I see it as helping the website. But, I did look and didn't see a simple answer. Again, no offense is intended. I've just never understood the complaints.

i need to write review so i get my badge

Hey, that’s is an imaginary complication of our example - please don’t do this with every condition you have in your app.

For branching out a separate path in an activity, use the Path() macro. It’s a convenient, simple way to declare alternative routes

step :decide_type, Output(Activity::Left, :credit_card) => Track(:with_credit_card)

# Create the track, which would automatically create an implicit End with the same id.
Track(:with_credit_card) do
    step :authorize
    step :charge
end

class Example::ValidationErrorTrack < Trailblazer::Activity::Railway
  step :validate_model, Output(:failure) => Track(:validation_error)
  step :save,           Output(:failure) => Track(:validation_error)

  # Can't use fail here or the magnetic_to won't work and  Track(:validation_error) won't work
  step :log_validation_error, magnetic_to: :validation_error,
    Output(:success) => End(:validation_error), 
    Output(:failure) => End(:validation_error) 
end

puts Trailblazer::Developer.render o
Reloading...

#<Start/:default>
 {Trailblazer::Activity::Right} => #<Trailblazer::Activity::TaskBuilder::Task user_proc=validate_model>
#<Trailblazer::Activity::TaskBuilder::Task user_proc=validate_model>
 {Trailblazer::Activity::Left} => #<Trailblazer::Activity::TaskBuilder::Task user_proc=log_validation_error>
 {Trailblazer::Activity::Right} => #<Trailblazer::Activity::TaskBuilder::Task user_proc=save>
#<Trailblazer::Activity::TaskBuilder::Task user_proc=save>
 {Trailblazer::Activity::Left} => #<Trailblazer::Activity::TaskBuilder::Task user_proc=log_validation_error>
 {Trailblazer::Activity::Right} => #<End/:success>
#<Trailblazer::Activity::TaskBuilder::Task user_proc=log_validation_error>
 {Trailblazer::Activity::Left} => #<End/:validation_error>
 {Trailblazer::Activity::Right} => #<End/:validation_error>
#<End/:success>

#<End/:validation_error>

#<End/:failure>

class Example::ValidationErrorTrack::VPathHelper1 < Trailblazer::Activity::Railway
   validation_error_path = Path(end_id: "End.validation_error", end_task: End(:validation_error)) do
    step :log_validation_error
  end
  step :validate_model, Output(:failure) => validation_error_path
  step :save,           Output(:failure) => validation_error_path
end

o=Example::ValidationErrorTrack::VPathHelper1; puts Trailblazer::Developer.render o
Reloading...

#<Start/:default>
 {Trailblazer::Activity::Right} => #<Trailblazer::Activity::TaskBuilder::Task user_proc=validate_model>
#<Trailblazer::Activity::TaskBuilder::Task user_proc=validate_model>
 {Trailblazer::Activity::Left} => #<Trailblazer::Activity::TaskBuilder::Task user_proc=log_validation_error>
 {Trailblazer::Activity::Right} => #<Trailblazer::Activity::TaskBuilder::Task user_proc=save>
#<Trailblazer::Activity::TaskBuilder::Task user_proc=log_validation_error>
 {Trailblazer::Activity::Right} => #<End/:validation_error>
#<Trailblazer::Activity::TaskBuilder::Task user_proc=save>
 {Trailblazer::Activity::Left} => #<Trailblazer::Activity::TaskBuilder::Task user_proc=log_validation_error>
 {Trailblazer::Activity::Right} => #<End/:success>
#<End/:success>

#<End/:validation_error>

#<End/:failure>

step :direct_debit

we also wrap them in Failure to solve the second problem: spotting potential exceptions is hard

exceptions are not exceptional, they represent expectable problems

Enforces better architecture

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".

Things could go wrong in two places here. First, the validation could fail if Github sends us data we don’t understand. Second, we might not know the user signing in, meaning the “find user” logic has to error-out

By the same token, marketing or political incentives often push design idioms

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.

Trust me, I thought a lot about #validate and its semantics, and I am gonna make it even more "SRP" by making Form#errors and #valid? semi-public. All that happens via #validate reducing the possible wrong usage for users.

These two mistakes, especially the second one, plant worries in your customers mind before they’ve even had time to think of them.

Stop warning people – no contract, no obligations, cancel anytime – companies can’t resist saying this on every pricing page but by using negative words they’re just putting ideas into people’s heads.

Yes, you do face difficult choices (moral) but you don't care about it. All you care are the reputation bars. So... Let's kill this guy, who cares if he is innocent, but this faction needs it or I'm dead. Sounds great on paper but to be honest... you just sit there and do whatever for these reputation bars. If you won't, then you lose

The only solution that I can see is to ensure that each user gets their own set of stores for each server-rendered page. We can achieve this with the context API, and expose the stores like so: <script> import { stores } from '@sapper/app'; const { page, preloading, session } = stores(); </script> Calling stores() outside component initialisation would be an error.

I tried leaking session and page data and indeed it's easy. Too easy. So I definitely agree that session data should not be readable from anywhere but the request itself.

This would be cumbersome, and would encourage developers to populate stores from inside components, which makes accidental data leakage significantly more likely.

which makes it much harder to accidentally keep logged-in state visible after a client-side logout

No more waiting around for pull requests to be merged and published. No more forking repos just to fix that one tiny thing preventing your app from working.

I'm still calling this v1.00 as this is what will be included in the first print run.

There was a major refactoring in the resolver (https://github.com/webpack/enhanced-resolve). This means the resolving option were changed too. Mostly simplification and changes that make it more unlikely to configure it incorrectly.

I think you meant a different set of arguments to Object.assign ? should be Object.assign({}, api.headers, headers) because you don't want to keep adding custom headers into hash of common api.headers. right?

Some people try to use && and || as a shortcut syntax for if ... then ... else ... fi, perhaps because they think they are being clever.

You could decide to trust yourself and your teammates to always remember this special case. You can all freely use short-circuiting, but simply don't allow a short-circuit expression to be on the last line of a script, for anything actually deployed. This may work 100% reliably for you and your team, but I don't believe that is the case for myself and many other developers. Of course, some kind of linter or commit hook might help.

It might seem too obvious but I've been struggling long time with this until I got that you need to include the base image too

the "trick" is to pass to --cache-from the image you are rebuilding (and have it pulled already) and ALSO the image that it uses as base in the FROM.

The average hydrogeochemical gradient for the Polish lowlands is 5.7 g/dm3/100m

Looking at all those bearing, heading, orientation, navigation, position, direction, etc. I think we have a bigger problem here. Someone has decided how to use tag (e.g. orientation is about page orientation), but there are 100 other cases. Imho, to disallow misusing there should be no "heading", but rather "html-heading", "gps-heading", "whatelse-heading", which make mistakes impossible. So yes, "heading" should go.

If you want to implement a form with a superb User Experience, you have to take care of many variables:

Managing Form State (holding field information, check if a control has been touched, if the user has clicked the submit button, who owns the current focus...) can be tedious and prone to errors. We can get help from React Final Form to handle these challenges for us.

When you apply this pattern for the first time, it might feel very contrived.

Perhaps we should detect URLSearchParams objects differently (using duck typing detection instead of instanceof window.URLSearchParams, for example) but the solution isn't adding a specific polyfill to Axios (as it'd increase the bundle size and still won't work with other polyfills).

Sometimes we can’t implement a solution that’s fully spec-compliant, and in those cases using a polyfill might be the wrong answer. A polyfill would translate into telling the rest of the codebase that it’s okay to use the feature, that it’ll work just like in modern browsers, but it might not in edge cases.

Furthermore, JSX encourages bad non-dry code. Having seen a lot of JSX over the past few months, its encourages copypasta coding.

The first rule of standard is no configuration. Whatever the outcome of this thread, adding options is the wrong solution.

To fix our Svelte version you might think we could use beforeUpdate or afterUpdate, but these lifecycle functions are related to the DOM being updated, not to prop updates. We only want to rerun our fetching when the album prop is changed.

Svelte right now has a lot of opportunities to have component state become out of sync with props.

focuses way too much on the getter/tracking part of the equation which is really the part you want reduce the mental bandwidth on

Note that if you are calling reset() and not specify new initial values, you must call it with no arguments. Be careful to avoid things like promise.catch(reset) or onChange={form.reset} in React, as they will get arguments passed to them and reinitialize your form.