What does the _ do/mean?

How does popping from a queue remove the race condition?

I've never seen a website document something like this before... especially as part of a FAQ.

How/why is this information helpful to people?

Why is it necessary to pause Can't new person post their question/comment even if it's in reply to comment #10 and the latest comment happens to be comment #56? There's no rule against replying/discussing something that is not the very latest thing to be posted in a discussion!

Possibly due to lack of a threaded discussion feature in GitHub? I think so.

Threads would allow replies to "quick person" A to go under their comment, without flooding the top level with comments... thus alowing "new person" B to post a new comment, which in so doing creates a new thread, which can have its own discussion.

How does it detect that it's being run non-interactively as part of a script?

Is that distinct/different from detecting whether the command is being piped?

Can't expect / unbuffer / etc. (whatever this is attempting to contrast itself with) be easily invoked directly from shell prompt or script too??

Okay, I guess you have to know more about how expect is invoked to understand what they mean. One glance at the examples, comparing them, and all becomes clear:

#!/bin/sh
empty -f -i in -o out telnet foo.bar.com
empty -w -i out -o in "ogin:" "luser\n"

I didn't realize that expect required/expected (no pun intended) to be used in scripts with its own shebang line:

#!/usr/bin/expect

spawn telnet foo.bar.com 
expect ogin {send luser\r}

That does make it less easy/normal to use expect within a shell script.

I was coming to the expect project from/for the unbuffer command, which by contrast, is quite easy to include/use in a shell script -- almost the same as empty, in fact. (Seems like almost a mismatch to have unbuffer command in expect toolkit then. Or is expect command the only odd one out in that toolkit?)

What does the (dashed) arrow for fork() mean? Why does it point that way? Which one is a fork of / has forked which one?

in the case of

briefly mentioning a subject but not going into it in detail the topic/subject need not be related at all (it sounds like).

What about in the case fo:

is defined as going off in a different direction. Does the fact that it's going off in a different direction imply that it at least starts out connected/related to the original (starting point) subject (as it does in the geometry sense of tangential)? Or does it permit "jumping" to another topic (in another direction) without being related/connected at all??

I don't think I like this definition very much. It doesn't quite fit the sense I'm trying to use it for in my tag:

tangentially related content (aside)

Ah, here's a definition that matches what I thought it meant (one of the senses anyway): https://hyp.is/3Bn2bpZ7Eeu3Ok8vg03AVA/www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tangential

not necessarily incompatible in all senses.

so is this only a concern/possibility when the word in question is a polyseme?

but there is nothing preventing the queen from being a mother

The meaning of the "incompatibility" relation seems really ambiguous. What does that mean precisely?

And how would we know for sure if an incompatibility (such as a peach is not a plum) or lack of incompatibility (a queen can be a mother and a mother can be a queen) is a sufficient condition to cause it to be or not be a co-hyponym?

Oh. I guess it says

Co-hyponyms are often but not always related to one another by the relation of incompatibility.

so it actually can't ever be used to prove or disprove (sufficient/necessary condition) that something is a co-hyponym. So that observation, while interesting, is not helpful in a practical / deterministic way...

So I think what this saying, rather indirectly (from the other direction), if I'm understanding correctly, is that the relationships that can be inferred from looking at a taxonomy are ambiguous, because a taxonomy includes 2 kinds of relationships, but encodes them in the same way (conflates them together as if they were both hyponyms--er, well, this is saying that the are both kinds of hyponyms):

• "An X is a Y" (simple hyponymy)
• "An X is a kind/type of Y".

Actually, I may have read it wrong / misunderstood it... While it's not ruling out that simple hyponymy may sometimes be used in a taxonomy, it is be saying that the "second relation" is "more specifically under the concept of taxonomy" ... which is not really clear, but seems to mean that it is more appropriate / better for use as a criterion in a taxonomy.

Okay, so define "simple hyponymy" and name the other kind of hyponymy that is referenced here.

What, then, is the difference between a semantic domain and a semantic field? The way they are used here, it's almost as if they are listing them in order to emphasis that they are synonyms ... but I'm not sure.

From the later examples of basketball (https://hyp.is/ynKbXI1BEeuEheME3sLYrQ/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantic_domain) and coffee shop, however, I am pretty certain that semantic domain is quite different from (broader than) semantic field.

(Not answered on this stub article)

What, precisely, is the distinction/difference between a semantic class and a semantic field? At the very least, you would say that they are themselves both very much within the same semantic field.

So, is a semantic class distinct from a semantic field in that semantic class is a more well-defined/clear-cut semantic field? And a semantic field is a more fluid, nebulous, not well-defined field (in the same sense as a magnetic field, which has no distinct boundary whatsoever, only a decay as you move further away from its source) ("semantic fields are constantly flowing into each other")?

If so, could you even say that a semantic class is a kind of (hyponym) of semantic field?

Maybe I should pose this question on a semantics forum.

Would this be referring, then, to explicit meaning or implicit meaning -- or neither?

Speaking of ambiguity...

Are the examples in the list "such as a morpheme, word, or sentence" examples of

• aspects of a linguistic unit or of:
• linguistic units themselves ?

Unless you are already fairly familiar with those terms -- in particular, linguistic unit -- it may not be clear.

I believe these are given as examples of "linguistic unit", in order to clarify what we mean by "linguistic unit" — perhaps (ironically) precisely because many people would be unfamiliar with that expression/term.

Is this a polyseme?

Or is that only the case if the different distinct senses are all within the same "field"?

Why not just make this document empty (besides a link) and link/redirect to the canonical version?

That way it is impossible for them to disagree.

So what happens if a task returns a Left signal?? Will it still go Right? Will it error?

I don't think we would/should really want to make this the "success" (Right) path and :credit_card be the "failure" (Left) track.

Maybe it's okay to repurpose Left and Right for something other than failure/success ... but only if we can actually change the default semantic of those signals/outputs. Is that possible? Maybe there's a way to override or delete the default outputs?

How can they exist and it still be considered pure??

I guess that's not quite the same / as bad as saying something had side effects in a purely functional programming context, right?

Question to myself: Is not having to think about it actually a good goal to have? Is it at odds with making intentional/well-considered decisions?  Obviously there are still many of interesting decisions to make even when using a framework that provides conventions and standardization and makes some decisions for you...

What is the opposite of free content?

The opposite of free/open-source software is proprietary software or non-free software (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proprietary_software).

So should we call the opposite of free content "non-free content"? Or "proprietary content"?

Seems likes either would be fine.

Looks like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Non-free_content prefers the term "non-free content".

Couldn't find anyone contrasting these 2 terms (like I could no doubt find for software):

• https://duckduckgo.com/?q=+%22non-free+content%22+%22free+content%22
• https://duckduckgo.com/?q=%22proprietary+content%22+%22free+content%22&ia=web

Not to be confused with:

• paid content ... just like:
• free content should not be confused with gratis content (?)
• free software should not be confused with freeware

How is this better than simply:

Add.run(x: x, y: 3)

?

I guess if we did that we would also have to remember to handle merging errors from that outcome into self...

Doesn't this contradict the statement

This strategy plays well with most other Devise strategies

(which includes password strategies)?

One thing that wasn't clear from their instructions was whether magic links could be used as an option in addition to regular password log-ins. On the one hand they say:

This strategy plays well with most other Devise strategies (see notes on other Devise strategies).

but on the other hand they say:

you'll want to update Devise's generated views to remove references to passwords, since you don't need them any more

What if there's an icon that I need that's not in this set?

How do I add a custom icon to the set for use on a web page and have the custom icon styled the same way as these "standard" icons?

Like how they have instructions for adding an icon here, for example: https://www.digitalocean.com/community/tutorials/angular-custom-svg-icons-angular-material#custom-svg-icons

Wouldn't/shouldn't it be the other way around — wouldn't we wait until the save is completed (database is updated) successfully before we navigate away from the current page/form??

Which character is this referring to exactly?

It looks like the empty string, which wouldn't make sense.

https://www.postgresql.org/docs/13/functions-matching.html only lists these 2:

If pattern does not contain percent signs or underscores, then the pattern only represents the string itself; in that case LIKE acts like the equals operator. An underscore (_) in pattern stands for (matches) any single character; a percent sign (%) matches any sequence of zero or more characters.

Another example:

const expensiveOperation = async (value) => {
  // return Promise.resolve(value)
    // console.log('value:', value)
    await sleep(1000)
    console.log('expensiveOperation: value:', value, 'finished')
    return value
}

var expensiveOperationDebounce = debounce(expensiveOperation, 100);

// for (let num of [1, 2]) {
//   expensiveOperationDebounce(num).then(value => {
//     console.log(value)
//   })
// }
(async () => { await sleep(0   ); console.log(await expensiveOperationDebounce(1)) })();
(async () => { await sleep(200 ); console.log(await expensiveOperationDebounce(2)) })();
(async () => { await sleep(1300); console.log(await expensiveOperationDebounce(3)) })();
// setTimeout(async () => {
//   console.log(await expensiveOperationDebounce(3))
// }, 1300)

Outputs: 1, 2, 3

Why, if I change it to:

(async () => { await sleep(0   ); console.log(await expensiveOperationDebounce(1)) })();
(async () => { await sleep(200 ); console.log(await expensiveOperationDebounce(2)) })();
(async () => { await sleep(1100); console.log(await expensiveOperationDebounce(3)) })();

Does it only output 2, 3?

I don't understand the need for the name "Open–closed principle". It doesn't seem meaningful or clear to me.

Can't we just call it "extensibility" or "easily extendable"? Doesn't "extensibility" already imply that we are extending it (adding new code on top of it, to interoperate with it) rather than modifying its source code?

Sure, we don't need to add any additional indent. But what if your code block contains indentation (function body)? It would look silly to remove all leading indentation.

Is that expected behavior or am I doing something wrong?

Why does he think they are dangerous?

So the posted answer wasn't necessary/correct? Which part of the answer was incorrect/unneeded?

I wish this OP comment included the full version of code that worked.

I don't understand this OP comment. Wasn't OP already returning loginDaoCall? So maybe the only thing they could mean is that they just needed to change it to return loginDaoCall.then(...) instead...

That would be consistent with what the answer said:

the promise returned by the further .then() does also get rejected and was not handled.

So I guess the unnecessary part of the answer was adding the return true/false...

Can this word be used to describe the property in computing where a value can be dynamic? I feel like "dynamicness" would be a better term for this.

It seems to refer more to personality:

1a: marked by usually continuous and productive activity or change a dynamic city b: ENERGETIC, FORCEFUL a dynamic personality

See also the same sentiment here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4137596

What part of LGPLv3 / MPL prevents LibreOffice code from being incorporated back into OpenOffice's Apache Licensed code??

Hmm, are these taglines or slogans? According to https://yourbusiness.azcentral.com/slogan-vs-tagline-12643.html:

A tagline should represent your business, while a slogan represents a single product or is part of an advertising campaign

it seems that these are more taglines than slogans.

Is this saying that the name difference is inaccurate?

Why is it inaccurate? You even called it the "theoretic difference" above.

Is that because "relative complement" would be better? Or because the full phrase "theoretic difference" [https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/set-theoretic_difference] is required in order for it to be accurate rather than just "difference"?

How is the use of - for sets inaccurate?

Strictly speaking, are these examples of dualities (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duality_(mathematics))? Or can I only, at strongest, say they are analogous (a looser coonection)?

Does this have any advantage over simply saving that key to a key file under ~/.ssh?

Like they do on https://stackoverflow.com/a/61944004/47185:

mv "$DEPLOY_KEY_PRIVATE" ~/.ssh/id_rsa

Where does deployer-token come from? Is this a placeholder or a well-known hard-coded value specific to __ (GitLab? my.company.com?)? Where is it documented?

Mojofication, Onion Souping, and the Network Service.

What is Mojofication?

What is Onion Souping?

But how do you check if they've given consent to a specific category??

Question (answer below)

Are they saying that it's not allowed to make signing up for a mailing list a precondition/requirement for anything? This was surprising to me.

So if you have a newsletter sign-up page that sends a digital bonus gift (like an e-book) to new subscribers, are required to completely change/repurpose your "newsletter sign-up page" into a "download e-book page" (that has an optional checkbox to also sign up for the newsletter, if you want)? That seems dumb to me, since it requires completely reversing the purpose of the page — which was, in my mind, primarily about signing up for the newsletter, with a bonus (an essentially optional one) thrown in for those who do so. Are you required to either repurpose it like that or remove the free bonus offer that would be sent to new subscribers?

The irony of this is that it requires websites that have a newsletter sign-up page like that to change it into a "newsletter sign-up page" where the newsletter sign-up part is optional. Which make you look kind of stupid, making a page that claims to be one thing but doesn't necessarily do what it says it's for.

Does this mean, in effect, that you may not lawfully provide any sort of incentive or reward for signing up for something (like a mailing list)? As long as it's very clear that some action is required before delivery of some thing, I don't see why this sort of thing should not be permitted? Would this fall under contract law? And as such, wouldn't such a contract be allowed and valid? Are mailing lists a special class of [service] that has special requirements like this? Or is it part of a broader category to which this requirement applies more generally?

Why is requiring the user to provide an email address before they can download a digital reward allowed but not requiring signing up to a mailing list? Why isn't it required that even the email address be optional to provide? (To answer my own question, probably because it's allowed to allow a user to request a specific thing to be sent via email, and an email address is required in order to fulfill that request. But...) It seems that the website could just provide a direct link to download it via HTTP/FTP/etc. as an option for users that chose not to provide an email address. (But should they be required to provide that option anytime they / just because they provide the option to have the same thing delivered via email?)

Answer

Looks like my question was answered below:

Explicit Form (where the purpose of the sign-up mechanism is unequivocal). So for example, in a scenario where your site has a pop-up window that invites users to sign up to your newsletter using a clear phrase such as: “Subscribe to our newsletter for access to discount vouchers and product updates!“, the affirmative action that the user performs by typing in their email address would be considered valid consent.

So the case I described, where it is made very clear that the incentive that is offered is conditional on subscribing, is listed as an exception to the general rule. That's good; it should be allowed.

Why do they only send password matches if username also matches?? A password should be deemed compromised and never used again if the password is found in a breach/paste anywhere, even if in connection with a different username/email.