I frequently call for name compromises (let's stop on one name and move forward instead of five more years of discussion).

Stallings said, “Does Emily’s clarity betray that element of the epic register that Matthew Arnold calls ‘nobility’? Some critics think a certain grandeur is missing. But every translation is a compromise, even a great one.”

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

Please can we (a) retain case information from the email address the student uses to set up their account (in case their mailbox is case sensitive), and use that when sending password reset emails, etc., but also (b) when checking credentials for login or setting up an account, treat the email address as non-case-sensitive. The upshot would be if someone registered with Student@City.ac.uk, all emails would go to Student@City.ac.uk, but the student would be able to log in with student@city.ac.uk, and if someone later tried to set up an account with student@city.ac.uk they'd be told that the user already exists.

If you are storing email addresses then you probably should store them in their original case (the recipient at least) to be safe. However, always compare them case-insensitively in order to avoid duplicates.

No option is perfect here, but a warning seems like a decent compromise unless there's a whole bunch of other plugins that break

i implemented this myself this way:

Changing every built-in function to accept anys would also "break" no one, but that doesn't make it a good idea. Part of TypeScript's value proposition is to catch errors; failing to catch an error is a reduction in that value and is something we have to weigh carefully against "Well maybe I meant that" cases.

WhatsApp’s group messaging protocol doesnot provide PCS [35,42].

The most important guideline to give is the following: Write clean unit tests if there is actual value in testing a complex piece of logic in isolation to prevent it from breaking in the future Otherwise, try to write your specs as close to the user’s flow as possible

I'm liking your use of private though - a fair compromise between ugly code and updating the Object class.

Are you also tired and fed up with the bulkiness of jQuery, but also don't want to have to type document.querySelector("div").appendChild(document.createTextNode("hello")); just to add some text to an element?

I think that depends on HOW you are using the attribute. If you're styling multiple images within a list or table so that they lay out correctly, then put the width/height in your CSS to avoid the need to add another set of tags to every image in the list. Use something like ul.gallery img: { width:117px; } On the other hand, if you are inserting an image into some content and it needs to be a certain size to make the document flow properly, then put it in the HTML. That way you don't have to muck up the style sheet for each different image in the html. And this way, if you change the content to a different image, of remove the image all together, you don't have remnants of code scattered in your CSS to remember to delete.

The lone Black delegate to the convention, Isaiah Montgomery, participated in openly suppressing the voting eligibility of most of those Black men, in the hope that this would reduce the terror, intimidation and hostility that white supremacists aimed at Black people.

Progress is made of compromises, this implies that we have to consider not only disadvantages, but also the advantages. Advantages do very clearly outweigh disadvantages. This doesn’t mean it perfect, or that work shouldn’t continue to minimize and reduce the disadvantages, but just considering disadvantages is not the correct way.

We all know that real business logic does not belong in the presentation layer, but what about simple presentation-oriented things like coloring alternate rows in table or marking the selected option in a <select> dropdown? It seems equally wrong to ask the controller/business logic code to compute these down to simple booleans in order to reduce the logic in the presentation template. This route just lead to polluting the business layer code with presentation-oriented logic.

Templates with logic versus "logic-less" templates is a hotly debated point among template language designer and users. Dust straddles the divide by adopting a "less logic" stance.

In at least one instance, a foreign adversary was able to take advantage of a back door invented by U.S. intelligence, according to Juniper Networks Inc, which said in 2015 its equipment had been compromised. In a previously unreported statement to members of Congress in July seen by Reuters, Juniper said an unnamed national government had converted the mechanism first created by the NSA.

We don’t need to apply refactorings we don’t want.

We don’t have to compromise the architecture, API or semantic structure of our code base.

“If your own proposal isn’t going to be attractive to you when it comes from the other side, what chance is there that the other side’s proposal is going to be attractive when it actually comes from the other side?”

By default, in order to allow inline fat-arrow validation functions, the field will not rerender if you change your validation function to an alternate function that has a different behavior. If you need your field to rerender with a new validation function, you will need to update another prop on the Field, such as key

The fears of breaking one of Svelte's core tenets seem overblown to me. Style encapsulation by default is great, but that doesn't mean we should contort the framework around it.

warn iff not seen before can be an acceptable option.

So what Python currently does in issue depreciation warnings in the main program, but not in libraries and similar code. That may also be a reasonable way to limit the number of warnings while making sure deprecations don't go unnoticed (because that makes them useless).

The necessity ofskRbeing secure for sender authentication is due to HPKEbeing vulnerable to key-compromise impersonation.

Only New Jersey and Delaware voted against Wilson’s compromise

ng hot June 11, 1787, South Carolina delegate John Rutledge

The only delegate who pounced on the three-fifths “compromise” was Massachusetts abo-litionist and future vice president Elbridge Gerry. “ Blacks are prop-erty, and are used [in the South] . . . as horses and cattle are [in the North],” Gerry stammered out. So “why should their representation be increased to the southward on account of t he number of slaves, [rather] t han [on the basis of] horses or oxen to the north?”

It is not customary in Rails to run the full test suite before pushing changes. The railties test suite in particular takes a long time, and takes an especially long time if the source code is mounted in /vagrant as happens in the recommended workflow with the rails-dev-box.As a compromise, test what your code obviously affects, and if the change is not in railties, run the whole test suite of the affected component. If all tests are passing, that's enough to propose your contribution.

It would be best to offer an official way to allow installing local, unsigned extensions, and make the option configurable only by root, while also showing appropiate warnings about the potential risks of installing unsigned extensions.