on the traditional empiricist account we do not have direct access to the facts of the external world 00:11:03 that is we do not experience externality directly but only immediately not immediately but immediately because between us and the external world are those what do you call them oh yes 00:11:18 sense organs and so the question is how faithfully they report what is going on out there well to raise the question how faithful is the sensory report 00:11:30 of the external world is to assume that you have some reliable non-sensory way of answering that question that's the box you can't get out of and so there is always this gap 00:11:42 between reality as it might possibly be known by some non-human creature and reality as empirically sampled by the senses whose limitations and distortions are very well 00:11:56 known but not perfectly classified or categorized or or measured

Before Ruby 3.2, there core class Time provided no way to to get back a Time value from any serialization, including even simple Time#inspect or #to_s. The Time.parse provided by standard library time (not core functionality, doesn’t work with explicit require 'time'), and tries to parse every imaginable format, while Time.new with string is stricter.

string ones are those most of the Rubyists remember.

Low-level processing of strings (like networks middleware, or efficient search algorithms, or packing/unpacking) might need an ability to operate on a level of single bytes, regardless of original string’s encoding. It is especially important while handling variable-length encodings like UTF-8. Before methods introduction, the only way to perform byte-level processing was to forcing string encoding into ASCII-8BIT, process, and then force encoding back.

Are protected members/fields really that bad? No. They are way, way worse. As soon as a member is more accessible than private, you are making guarantees to other classes about how that member will behave. Since a field is totally uncontrolled, putting it "out in the wild" opens your class and classes that inherit from or interact with your class to higher bug risk. There is no way to know when a field changes, no way to control who or what changes it. If now, or at some point in the future, any of your code ever depends on a field some certain value, you now have to add validity checks and fallback logic in case it's not the expected value - every place you use it. That's a huge amount of wasted effort when you could've just made it a damn property instead ;) The best way to share information with deriving classes is the read-only property: protected object MyProperty { get; } If you absolutely have to make it read/write, don't. If you really, really have to make it read-write, rethink your design. If you still need it to be read-write, apologize to your colleagues and don't do it again :) A lot of developers believe - and will tell you - that this is overly strict. And it's true that you can get by just fine without being this strict. But taking this approach will help you go from just getting by to remarkably robust software. You'll spend far less time fixing bugs.

I'm not saying never mark methods private. I'm saying the better rule of thumb is to "make methods protected unless there's a good reason not to".

Marking methods protected by default is a mitigation for one of the major issues in modern SW development: failure of imagination.

The old wisdom "mark it private unless you have a good reason not to" made sense in days when it was written, before open source dominated the developer library space and VCS/dependency mgmt. became hyper collaborative thanks to Github, Maven, etc. Back then there was also money to be made by constraining the way(s) in which a library could be utilized. I spent probably the first 8 or 9 years of my career strictly adhering to this "best practice". Today, I believe it to be bad advice. Sometimes there's a reasonable argument to mark a method private, or a class final but it's exceedingly rare, and even then it's probably not improving anything.

Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Seat belts aren’t perfect either, do you argue we shouldn’t wear them? Etc, etc. This argument only works if what you’re defending is good. As I’ve already explained, SMS-2FA is not good.

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

If you dig into the details, you will see that the TypeScript team take breaking changes very seriously and with consideration.

I think the TS team generally tries to minimize breaking changes from version to version and don't do so unless there is a good reason.

Returns a Promise<?Object> that resolves with no value on success or resolves with an Object of submission errors on failure. The reason it resolves with errors is to leave rejection for when there is a server or communications error.

Of all the compile-to-languages, the one that strikes me as having the least merit is JSX. It's basically a ton of added complexity for the sake of what boils down to syntax. There are no real gains in terms of language semantics in JSX.

I agree that "it feels gross" is a bad reason. "not paving a bad cowpath" is a much better reason.

Because the code in question predates the introduction of the guideline and there is no other reason to be modifying that code.

Moreover, React team even removed the “highlight updates” feature from dev tools because people used to obsessively haunt wasted renders with no reasoning behind it

Luckily, there is absolutely no good reason not to use strict mode for everything — so the solution to this problem is to lobby the authors of those modules to update them.

We wondered - do voters carefully consider the political issues and then objectively study each candidate’s platform, or do they mainly go with from-the-gut “tribal” feelings? 

the feature was dropped to “lack of use.”

I would rather you vote against my position because you had an opposing view than vote with my position because you flipped a coin.

I believe that mere lists of "vote yes" or "vote no" are not very helpful except for sheep: it's important to know why one is urged to vote in any given direction.