Developers want to improve their project. If you find an issue, bring it up. If it's a valid concern, the author will probably want to have it fixed. In many cases, the author will consider it a valid issue, but simply not have the personal time or need to address it immediately. This is where open-source is great. Just fork the project and fix it

Such gems like Memoist override methods. So, if you want to memoize a method in a child class with the same named memoized method in a parent class — you have to use something like awkward identifier: argument. This gem allows you to just memoize methods when you want to.

Butno matter how the form may vary, the fact that an organism hasconscious experience at all means, basically, that there is somethingit is like to be that organism

- In Ernest Becker's book, The Birth and Death of Meaning, Becker provides a summary of the ego from a Freudian perspective that is salient to Nagel's work
    - The ego creates time and humans, occupying a symbolosphere are timebound creatures that create the sense of time to order sensations and perceptions
    - The ego becomes the central reference point for the construct of time
- If the anthropocene is a problem
- and we wish to migrate towards an ecological civilization in which there is greater respect for other species, 
    - a symbiocene
- this means we need to empathize with other species 
- If our species is timebound but the majority of other species are not, 
    - then we must bridge that large gap by somehow experiencing what it's like to be an X ( where X can be a bat or many other species)

I have yet to see a Snapd or Flatpak build of Audacity that I'm happy with. Those builds are beyond our control as they are made by 3rd parties. I do find it mildly annoying that Flatpak direct users that have problems with their builds to us.

Instead read this gems brief source code completely before use OR copy the code straight into your codebase.

Defining the project scope means that you must have a clear vision and agreement on the outcomes of the project. This allows any deliverable of the project to remain on schedule.

The Business Strategy stems from a detailed strategic planning process. However, the question we want to answer in this article is whether we can execute multiple strategies side by side while they do not interfere with each other. We compare multiple strategies for business, information provision and IT and focus on Strategic planning.

Users think every Webpack tool/config problem is a problem with a specific package and opens an issue asking for support on the package instead of Webpack. In the past year alone, I’ve had to deal with hundreds of Webpack issues on my repos.

Wasn't sure if this belonged as an issue in Devise or Rails though.

It sounds like a gnome-open (or the equivalent library call) bug. Reassigning.

Is there a PR to... something? sassc-rails? That would make the patch not necessary? (I don't know if there's any good way to monkey-patch that in, I think you have to fork? So some change seems required...) Should the defaults be different somehow? This is very difficult to figure out.

Is there a PR to... something? sassc-rails?

I apologize for the slow development of Reform after the "explosion" when I released it initially. The reason for this is I changed jobs and didn't use Reform (yet).

Now if you think about it, PJAX sounds a lot like Turbolinks. They both use JS to fetch server-rendered HTML and put it into the DOM. They both do caching and manage the forward and back buttons. It's almost as if the Rails team took a technique developed elsewhere and just rebranded it.

I'm suggesting there should be a way to write lifecycle related code that also responds to changing props, like how useEffect works. I think how React handles this could be a good source of inspiration.

I started Solid years ago before I thought anyone would be interested in using it. I only started promoting it because it had already achieved the goals I had set out for it.

both copied much of their API from Redux Form, so, despite working very differently under the hood, there is a lot of overlap in their APIs.

If you’ve used Flow before, the syntax is fairly similar. One difference is that we’ve added a few restrictions to avoid code that might appear ambiguous.

For context, the previous API had a lazy promise. Currently I’m thinking we could just return a closure like in the React API

This is the same as useEffect in React, incidentally — the function must be synchronous in order to avoid race conditions.

The main rationale for this PR is that, in my hones opinion, Svelte needs a way to support style overrides in an intuitive and close to plain HTML/CSS way. What I regard as intuitive is: Looking at how customizing of styles is being done when applying a typical CSS component framework, and making that possible with Svelte.

Does it look like a decorator plugin in Ractive, right

The more I think about this, the more I think that maybe React already has the right solution to this particular issue, and we're tying ourselves in knots trying to avoid unnecessary re-rendering. Basically, this JSX... <Foo {...a} b={1} {...c} d={2}/> ...translates to this JS: React.createElement(Foo, _extends({}, a, { b: 1 }, c, { d: 2 })); If we did the same thing (i.e. bail out of the optimisation allowed by knowing the attribute names ahead of time), our lives would get a lot simpler, and the performance characteristics would be pretty similar in all but somewhat contrived scenarios, I think. (It'll still be faster than React, anyway!)