St Columba Columba (521-597), known as Colm Cille in Ireland, went to the west coast of Scotland and to the island of Iona to do penance and escape from the blood spilled in his family battles at home in Ireland.

Privacy principle

Psychoinformational principle

Psycho-purity principle

the conclusion must of course be, okay, so this is the risk  assessment we have. Let's, then we have to apply precaution. Precautionary  principle. Exactly. Uncertainty in science, which will always be there, should in my view,  always be. connected with a risk assessment.

the Maximum Power Principle

Narratives are how we conceptualize the world. Certain narrative links – links between events that we add in to help explain the world – are picked up through mimesis. We see others think of the world in a particular way, and we start to conceptualize the world in similar terms. And the best solution to a harmful narrative is a more enriching narrative. You have to have a replacement for the narrative you are trying to rid yourself of.

specificity relies on the ‘Goldilocks principle’ – a scale from too narrow, too broad or just right (Brookhart, 2008, p. 33). Apply sufficient detail and focus without doing the work for the student. Show rather than tell.

which is the national curriculum,emphasises the importance of student proficiency in at least two languages and being ableto communicate in others. The language-specific curricula follows an additive approach tomultilingualism, namely, all students learn a language on a “home language” level (which formost would be their home language) and at least one additional offi cial language, and becomecompetent in their additional language on a second-language level, while the home languageis maintained and developed.

The behaviour of a unit of code should be as obvious as possible by looking only at that unit of code

Mutability as a liability

there are so many uncertain factors on soil carbon, ocean carbon, ocean heat, ice melt, biodiversity loss, biome tipping points.

string ones are those most of the Rubyists remember.

In computing, the robustness principle is a design guideline for software that states: "be conservative in what you do, be liberal in what you accept from others". It is often reworded as: "be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept". The principle is also known as Postel's law, after Jon Postel, who used the wording in an early specification of TCP.

In the layered architecture pattern, each layer fulfills a specific responsibility and role within the application. Some focus on user interface logic, while others handle the execution of business rules. These layers complement each other's unique purposes, but they aren't explicitly reliant on one another to perform their own tasks.

This is insightful application of Postel's law en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robustness_principle. It remains wrong to write software that assumes local parts of email addresses are case-insensitive, but yes, given that there is plenty of wrong software out there, it is also less than robust to require case sensitivity if you are the one accepting the mail.

Solution: Store emails with case sensitivity Send emails with case sensitivity Perform internal searches with case insensitivity

Robustness principle suggests that we accept case sensitive emails

A flaw can become entrenched as a de facto standard. Any implementation of the protocol is required to replicate the aberrant behavior, or it is not interoperable. This is both a consequence of applying the robustness principle, and a product of a natural reluctance to avoid fatal error conditions. Ensuring interoperability in this environment is often referred to as aiming to be "bug for bug compatible".

The Hawthorne effect is a type of human behavior reactivity

This example illustrates the potential for an unintended consequence to move between categories and demonstrates that there are times when it is necessary to review and reflect. What is considered known and knowable changes over time: has the state of knowledge developed or an unintended consequence been identified?

Note 9/8j says - "There is a note in the Zettelkasten that contains the argument that refutes the claims on every other note. But this note disappears as soon as one opens the Zettelkasten. I.e. it appropriates a different number, changes position (or: disguises itself) and is then not to be found. A joker." Is he talking about some hypothetical note? What did he mean by disappearing? Can someone please shed some light on what he really meant?

The paradox of information systems[edit] Drummond suggests in her paper in 2008 that computer-based information systems can undermine or even destroy the organisation that they were meant to support, and it is precisely what makes them useful that makes them destructive – a phenomenon encapsulated by the Icarus Paradox.[9] For examples, a defence communication system is designed to improve efficiency by eliminating the need for meetings between military commanders who can now simply use the system to brief one another or answer to a higher authority. However, this new system becomes destructive precisely because the commanders no longer need to meet face-to-face, which consequently weakened mutual trust, thus undermining the organisation.[10] Ultimately, computer-based systems are reliable and efficient only to a point. For more complex tasks, it is recommended for organisations to focus on developing their workforce. A reason for the paradox is that rationality assumes that more is better, but intensification may be counter-productive.[11]

For millions of Americans who are living pay-check to paycheck and precariously close to the poverty line, normal life eventslike the birth of a child or temporary loss of a job can send them below thepoverty line. But poverty spells tend to be short, and they are caused by the riskassociated with normal events that happen to most of us across the life course.They are just more catastrophic for some than for others.

The erasure principle would suggest that “Bill” isthe subject of “write,” although of course the sentence does not imply that Billwrote the book – rather John and Bill did, together.

A-over-A principle that was proposed as the basis for an explanation of suchphenomena as are illustrated by examples 44–58.

Generally, assets will still perform well if there is only a moderate degree of monetary policy tightening and risk premiums are falling. They will perform particularly poorly if there is a major tightening and risk premiums rise.

now we talk i talk about a few ideas good regulators requisite variety self-organized criticality and then the 01:35:04 free energy principle from active inference um and uh maybe i'll just try to briefly talk mention what's what those means for what those ideas mean for people who 01:35:15 aren't familiar so good regulator really came from the good regular theorem or whatever it's called really came from cybernetics ash ashby yeah a lot his law of requisite 01:35:33 variety and uh the it's the concept is that a organism or a you know a system must be must be a model of that which it but 01:35:47 that needs to control

A key point I make is that that the boundary between knowledge and ignorance is not impermeable. It is open to political appropriation by less powerful groups. In other words, calling attention to the problem of strategic ignorance by elite actors – and demanding more accountability from those actors – can lead to a new "war of position", in a Gramscian sense. In my book, I term this argument the Lorde principle, after Audre Lorde, in homage to earlier academic and activist work that my argument builds upon. I suggest that the Lorde principle encompasses the way that unknowing can be a revolutionary force for good.

I used to tell students (including PhD students) that 90% of what they will write will not be any good. But the only way they will get to the 10% that is good is by writing the 90% that isn't. So, they'd better start writing now! ;-)

This can also be considered The Iceberg Principle. The 10% (really 9%) you do see is only visible because of the 90% (really 91%) you don't see. Without that 90% you don't get the 10%.

"Sturgeon's Law". According to those who were there, Theodore Sturgeon the SF author made this comment at a convention in 1953. it is that:90% of everything is crud, and it's the 10% that isn't crud that is important.

By dropping or reducing or postponing the least importantparts, we can unblock ourselves and move forward even when timeis scarce.

One of my favorite rules of thumb is to “Only start projects that are already 80percent done.” That might seem like a paradox, but committing to finishprojects only when I’ve already done most of the work to capture, organize,and distill the relevant material means I never run the risk of startingsomething I can’t finish.

Lesson #3: “Decide what you stand for. And then stand for it all the time.”

Lesson #2: Don’t lose track of the essential things. Allocate resources appropriately.

Lesson #1: Don’t over-invest in work or under-invest in relationships.

Consider How You’re Allocating Resources

Always Stick To Your Principles

Failure Is Progress

Do Not Over Invest In Work, And Under Invest In Relationships

I originally said: It feels like the principle of least power in action. But another way of rephrasing “least power” is “most availability.” Technologies that are old, simple, and boring tend to be more widely available.

instead of the “Mastodon appraoch” we take the “Replit approach”

What happens if - maybe! - there’s a model of decentralization that feels more like a bunch of weird Replits networking with each other.

I wrote about my idea for Library.json a while back. It’s this idea that we might be able to rebuild these monolithic centralized services like Goodreads using nothing by a little RSS.

Theoretically, there are many plugins for webservers adding support for scripting using any scripting language you can name. These are sometimes used to host full-blown web applications but I don't see them being used to facilitate mildly dynamic functionality.

They might have a style selector at the top of each page, causing a cookie to be set, and the server to serve a different stylesheet on every subsequent page load.

But one had to be practical as well as principled.32

The reason for this has been discussed earlier in the context of the minimum information principle: you should always try to make sure your brain works in the exactly same way at each repetition.

Research is needed to determine the situations in which the redundancy principle does not hold

Principle 2: Consider Adding On‐Screen Text to Narration in Special Situations

Principle 1: Do Not Add On‐Screen Text to Narrated Graphics

boundary conditions.

graphics using words in both on‐screen text and audio narration in which the audio repeats the text. We call this technique redundant on‐screen text because the printed text (on‐screen text) is redundant with the spoken text (narration or audio).

Goodhart's law is an adage often stated as "When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure".[1] It is named after British economist Charles Goodhart, who advanced the idea in a 1975 article on monetary policy in the United Kingdom:[2][3] .mw-parser-output .templatequote{overflow:hidden;margin:1em 0;padding:0 40px}.mw-parser-output .templatequote .templatequotecite{line-height:1.5em;text-align:left;padding-left:1.6em;margin-top:0}Any observed statistical regularity will tend to collapse once pressure is placed upon it for control purposes.

The fact that these countries are still not on track to reach the 1.5⁰C per capita level by 2030, and have still not delivered the minimal commitment to mobilize $100bn per year in international climate finance by 2020, is a double indictment of their moral and legal failure in view of the equity principle at the heart of the UNFCCC and its Paris Agreement.

Generate type with the index signature: interface RandomMappingWithIndexSignature { stringProp: string; numberProp: number; [propName: string]: string | number | undefined; }

RemoteStorage requires the server to support a subset of OAuth, and that's the only kind of authentication supported. It also requires WebFinger support

Principle #3: Intentionality is satisfying. Digital minimalists derive significant satisfaction from their general commitment to being more intentional about how they engage with new technologies. This source of satisfaction is independent of the specific decisions they make and is one of the biggest reasons that minimalism tends to be immensely meaningful to its practitioners.

Principle #2: Optimization is important. Digital minimalists believe that deciding a particular technology supports something they value is only the first step. To truly extract its full potential benefit, it’s necessary to think carefully about how they’ll use the technology.

Principle #1: Clutter is costly. Digital minimalists recognize that cluttering their time and attention with too many devices, apps, and services creates an overall negative cost that can swamp the small benefits that each individual item provides in isolation.

Intention trumps convenience

Intentionality is satisfying

Optimization is important

Clutter is costly

Aristotle already thought the argument to be deceiving. He ridicules it by saying that according to the same kind of argument a hair, which was subject to an even pulling power from opposing sides, would not break, and that a man, being just as hungry as thirsty, placed in between food and drink, must necessarily remain where he is and starve. To him it was the wrong argument for the right proposition. Absolute propositions concerning the non-existence of things are always in danger of becoming falsified on closer investigation. They contain a kind of subjective aspect: “as far as I know.”

We may assume that Anaximander somehow had to defend his bold theory of the free-floating, unsupported earth against the obvious question of why the earth does not fall. Aristotle’s version of Anaximander’s argument runs like this: “But there are some who say that it (namely, the earth) stays where it is because of equality, such as among the ancients Anaximander. For that which is situated in the center and at equal distances from the extremes, has no inclination whatsoever to move up rather than down or sideways; and since it is impossible to move in opposite directions at the same time, it necessarily stays where it is.” (De caelo 295b10ff., DK 12A26) Many authors have pointed to the fact that this is the first known example of an argument that is based on the principle of sufficient reason (the principle that for everything which occurs there is a reason or explanation for why it occurs, and why this way rather than that).

Minto is the originator of the MECE principle pronounced "ME-see",[6][3] a grouping principle for separating a set of items into subsets that are mutually exclusive (ME) and collectively exhaustive (CE).[7] MECE underlies her Minto Pyramid Principle,[3] which suggests that people's ideas should be communicated in a pyramid format in which summary points are derived from constituent and supporting sub-points:[8] Grouping together low-level facts they see as similar Drawing an insight from having seen the similarity Forming a new grouping of related insights, etc. Minto argues that one "can’t derive an idea from a grouping unless the ideas in the grouping are logically the same, and in logical order.”[3]

Introduce behaviour that is likely to surprise users. Instead have due consideration for patterns adopted by other commonly-used languages.

71% of global emissions can be traced back to 100 companies,

In my opinion, this single-tab Refresh behavior strongly violates the principle of least surprise, and it doesn’t help us to maintain code consistency or data consistency.

You should default to the most permissive option imo and there really is no reason to check anything until you really need to If it were left to me I'd just use optional chaining, as it also eliminates the need for no-ops

In other words, programs that send messages to other machines (or to other programs on the same machine) should conform completely to the specifications, but programs that receive messages should accept non-conformant input as long as the meaning is clear.

be conservative in what you do, be liberal in what you accept from others

Serving pages and assets as pre-generated files allows read-only hosting reducing attack vectors even further. Meanwhile dynamic tools and services can be provided by vendors with teams dedicated to securing their specific systems and providing high levels of service.

What I believe should happen is the Svelte compiler should, when a promise is passed to onMount, realise that a promise has been passed, and await the result of the function to be used as the onDestroy function. i.e, it should behave the exact same way for an async function as it does for a non-async function (if this is possible)

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.

Web developers are well aware of the mess you can get into with global CSS, and the action of writing <Child class="foo"/> and <div class={_class}>` (or similar) in the child component is an explicit indication that, while taking advantage of all the greatness of style encapsulation by default, in this case you have decided that you want a very specific and controlled "leak", of one class, from one component instance to one component instance.

Since one of Svelte's main principles is reacting only to data changes (as opposed to re-render the whole app with the full state all the time)

It’s even worse that there’s no alternative method that does the unsurprising thing IMO.

The "unsurprising" thing here would generally be to maintain the order, for instance, and subtract the first or last instance...

Code doing surprising and slightly nonsensical things... I'm weary now. And that's with ruby being more consistent than most!

using SSH is likely the best approach because personal access tokens have account level access

In interface design, always do the least surprising thing

By putting our data in the corporate cloud, we are that kid. We are giving corporations and governments a way to see where we are looking towards, and they can predict our future and decide whether and how to intervene or subvert.

From a game theoretic standpoint, we’ve already lost. Too many of our civil society adversaries have too much of our data, and we have so little of theirs.

You see entropy is information leaking. When it comes to passwords (and secure systems in general) you want to leak as little information as possible. Otherwise an attacker has information they can use to their advantage.

Download the billions of breached passwords and blacklist them all. Attackers have a copy; so should you.

This isn’t the first time Kerckhoffs’ Principle has come up. I specifically discussed it when talking about creating good, strong Master Passwords, when I said that we should use a system for coming up with Master Passwords that doesn’t lose its strength if the attacker knows the system that we used

A Portuguese hospital was fined because of inadequate account management practices, such as having five times the number of active accounts than required and giving doctors blanket access to all patient files, irrespective of the doctor's specialty.

There’s always a fallback “peer”

Among Mayer’s principles are that audio and visual should work seamlessly together, and that on-screen text should be minimal and in close proximity to the graphics [1]

In this kind of situation one might well ask: why continue to make the 80 per cent of products that only generate 20 per cent of profits? Companies rarely ask these questions, perhaps because to answer them would mean very radical action: to stop doing four-fifths of what you are doing is not a trivial change.

There are two routes to achieving this. One is to reallocate the resources from unproductive to productive uses, the secret of all entrepreneurs down the ages. Find a round hole for a round peg, a square hole for a square peg, and a perfect fit for any shape in between. Experience suggests that every resource has its ideal arena, where the resource can be tens or hundreds of times more effective than in most other arenas. The other route to progress—the method of scientists, doctors, preachers, computer systems designers, educationalists and trainers—is to find ways to make the unproductive resources more effective, even in their existing applications; to make the weak resources behave as though they were their more productive cousins; to mimic, if necessary by intricate rote-learning procedures, the highly productive resources. The few things that work fantastically well should be identified, cultivated, nurtured and multiplied. At the same time, the waste—the majority of things that will always prove to be of low value to man and beast—should be abandoned or severely cut back.

Certainly, the principle brings home what may be evident anyway: that there is a tragic amount of waste everywhere, in the way that nature operates, in business, in society and in our own lives. If the typical pattern is for 80 per cent of results to come from 20 per cent of inputs, it is necessarily typical too that 80 per cent, the great majority, of inputs are having only a marginal—20 per cent—impact.

Both phenomena help to show how the universe abhors balance. In the former case, we see a natural flight away from a 50/50 split of competing phenomena. A 51/49 split is inherently unstable and tends to gravitate towards a 95/5, 99/1 or even 100/0 split. Equality ends in dominance: that is one of the messages of chaos theory. The 80/20 Principle’s message is different yet complementary It tells us that, at any one point, a majority of any phenomenon will be explained or caused by a minority of the actors participating in the phenomenon. 80 per cent of the results come from 20 per cent of the causes. A few things are important; most are not.

Related to the idea of feedback loops is the concept of the tipping point. Up to a certain point, a new force—whether it is a new product, a disease, a new rock group or a new social habit such as jogging or roller-blading—finds it difficult to make headway. A great deal of effort generates little by way of results. At this point many pioneers give up. But if the new force persists and can cross a certain invisible line, a small amount of additional effort can reap huge returns. This invisible line is the tipping point.

We can see positive feedback loops operating in many areas, explaining how it is that we typically end up with 80/20 rather than 50/50 relationships between populations. For example, the rich get richer, not just (or mainly) because of superior abilities, but because riches beget riches. A similar phenomenon exists with goldfish in a pond. Even if you start with goldfish almost exactly the same size, those that are slightly bigger become very much bigger, because, even with only slight initial advantages in stronger propulsion and larger mouths, they are able to capture and gobble up disproportionate amounts of food

At the heart of this progress is a process of substitution. Resources that have weak effects in any particular use are not used, or are used sparingly. Resources that have powerful effects are used as much as possible. Every resource is ideally used where it has the greatest value. Wherever possible, weak resources are developed so that they can mimic the behaviour of the stronger resources.

Why should you care about the 80/20 Principle? Whether you realize it or not, the principle applies to your life, to your social world and to the place where you work. Understanding the 80/20 Principle gives you great insight into what is really happening in the world around you.

The reason that the 80/20 Principle is so valuable is that it is counterintuitive. We tend to expect that all causes will have roughly the same significance. That all customers are equally valuable. That every bit of business, every product and every dollar of sales revenue is as good as another. That all employees in a particular category have roughly equivalent value. That each day or week or year we spend has the same significance. That all our friends have roughly equal value to us. That all enquiries or phone calls should be treated in the same way. That one university is as good as another. That all problems have a large number of causes, so that it is not worth isolating a few key causes. That all opportunities are of roughly equal value, so that we treat them all equally. We tend to assume that 50 per cent of causes or inputs will account for 50 per cent of results or outputs. There seems to be a natural, almost democratic, expectation that causes and results are generally equally balanced. And, of course, sometimes they are. But this ‘50/50 fallacy’ is one of the most inaccurate and harmful, as well as the most deeply rooted, of our mental maps.

The key point is not the percentages, but the fact that the distribution of wealth across the population was predictably unbalanced.

In business, many examples of the 80/20 Principle have been validated. 20 per cent of products usually account for about 80 per cent of dollar sales value; so do 20 per cent of customers. 20 per cent of products or customers usually also account for about 80 per cent of an organization’s profits. In society, 20 per cent of criminals account for 80 per cent of the value of all crime. 20 per cent of motorists cause 80 per cent of accidents. 20 per cent of those who marry comprise 80 per cent of the divorce statistics (those who consistently remarry and redivorce distort the statistics and give a lopsidedly pessimistic impression of the extent of marital fidelity). 20 per cent of children attain 80 per cent of educational qualifications available. In the home, 20 per cent of your carpets are likely to get 80 per cent of the wear. 20 per cent of your clothes will be worn 80 per cent of the time. And if you have an intruder alarm, 80 per cent of the false alarms will be set off by 20 per cent of the possible causes. The internal combustion engine is a great tribute to the 80/20 Principle. 80 per cent of the energy is wasted in combustion and only 20 per cent gets to the wheels; this 20 per cent of the input generates 100 per cent of the output!

The 80/20 Principle asserts that a minority of causes, inputs or effort usually lead to a majority of the results, outputs or rewards. Taken literally, this means that, for example, 80 per cent of what you achieve in your job comes from 20 per cent of the time spent. Thus for all practical purposes, four-fifths of the effort—a dominant part of it—is largely irrelevant. This is contrary to what people normally expect.

the algorithms of the Web are one of the least understood concepts that our students know nothing about

Principle 1—Problem-centered: Learning ispromoted when learners are engaged in solvingreal-world problems.

             * Authentic context
             * Complex problems  
             * Real stakeholders
             * Authentic feedback from real stakeholders 

Acknowledging prior learning

Metacognition activities in support of metacognitive practices

Formative Assessment

Community Centered

One of those values is the principle of material honesty. One material should not be used as a substitute for another. Otherwise the end result is deceptive.