A user wants to comment on a single parameter name in a function. It is highlighted as a unique part of the syntax tree, and they're not happy with the particular name the author of the MR chose. Problem: The user can only comment on the entire line, because "lines" are considered the most fundamental building block in our Diffs UI.

A reviewer would like to open a discussion on the MR description because they disagree with some of the conclusions, but want more clarification. Problem: The only way to have a conversation about the MR metadata (like title, description, labels, etc.) is to open a generic note on the whole MR. There's no way to scope a discussion to a part of the MR.

ontology researchers have developed their own approaches to levels, which they call granularity levels, and to different types of hierarchies based on levels, which they call granular perspectives. Due to the need of computer-parsability, ontology researchers necessarily had to provide explicit criteria for identifying and demarcating different levels and hierarchies. These criteria specify what is called a granularity framework

unity of science

À la carte can be now used figuratively to describe someone who picks some things out of a larger set, e.g., an à la carte Catholic who (conveniently) believes in some aspects of the religion, but not others. À la carte television refers to customers paying for just channels they want, rather they having to pay for a whole (cable) service.

a change in a weight of evidence of 1 deciban (i.e., a change in the odds from evens to about 5:4) is about as finely as humans can reasonably be expected to quantify their degree of belief in a hypothesis

Alternative issuers tend to offer shorter, targeted learning experiences, which are specificallydesigned to address skill gaps. This by default makes their credentials more granular than thoseissued by traditional academic institutions. That said, research shows that a large percentage ofalternative credentials are designed with the same limitations as traditional ones—they containonly short descriptions of the title of a learning program, with little additional metadata or evidenceof the learning achievement provided

I have already tried '--ignore-failed-read', but the problem is that it doesn't only ignore failed reads on the -T files. It ignores all failed reads.

Second, I don't agree that there are too many small modules. In fact, I wish every common function existed as its own module. Even the maintainers of utility libraries like Underscore and Lodash have realized the benefits of modularity and allowed you to install individual utilities from their library as separate modules. From where I sit that seems like a smart move. Why should I import the entirety of Underscore just to use one function? Instead I'd rather see more "function suites" where a bunch of utilities are all published separately but under a namespace or some kind of common name prefix to make them easier to find. The way Underscore and Lodash have approached this issue is perfect. It gives consumers of their packages options and flexibility while still letting people like Dave import the whole entire library if that's what they really want to do.

The granularity of data refers to the size in which data fields are sub-divided

I'd suggest there ought to be config to disable source maps specifically, and specifically for either CSS or JS (not alwasy both), without turning off debug mode. As you note, debug mode does all sorts of different things that you might want with or without source maps.

There's not a way to do it at the moment without enabling all debug features.

Since Solid uses fine grained updates and Components are only rendered in their entirety once, you can wrap over state simply by using closures.

You should install the packages individually. Alternatively, you can install all of them at once with the svelte-material-ui package.

Since re-rendering in Svelte happens at a more granular level than the component, there is no artificial pressure to create smaller components than would be naturally desirable, and in fact (because one-component-per-file) there is pressure in the opposite direction. As such, large components are not uncommon.

Personally, I think class is too blunt an instrument — it breaks encapsulation, allowing component consumers to change styles that they probably shouldn't, while also denying them a predictable interface for targeting individual styles, or setting theme properties globally

We also believe that this explicit API should be relatively granular and work at the selector or value level, not at the element level. This is why we think classes are "a blunt instrument", as Rich put it. Exposing even a single class gives you a clear entry point to the entire component's markup allowing complete control over every aspect. We need a more granular way for a component to define an explicit style interface.

An example of an extended consent form that allows users to give consent in a more granular manner – i.e. selectively for a number of processing purposes (analytics, remarketing or content personalization)

In some instances, such as in the UK, zip code can map to a single residence and thus cannot be passed to Analytics.

Instead of continuing the millennia old search for the universal ontology, different types of ontologies have been proposed in computer science. [.] [C]lassification of ontologies [is] based on their granularity and [their] thematic scope [differs] into top-level, domain, task, and application ontologies ... (Hitzler, Janowicz, Berg-Cross, Obrst, Sheth, Finin, Cruz 2012)

Sen. Mark Warner of Virginia told the AP it is “frustratingly common” for technology companies “to have corporate practices that diverge wildly from the totally reasonable expectations of their users,” and urged policies that would give users more control of their data. Rep. Frank Pallone of New Jersey called for “comprehensive consumer privacy and data security legislation” in the wake of the AP report.

“If you’re going to allow users to turn off something called ‘Location History,’ then all the places where you maintain location history should be turned off,” Mayer said. “That seems like a pretty straightforward position to have.” Google says it is being perfectly clear. “There are a number of different ways that Google may use location to improve people’s experience, including: Location History, Web and App Activity, and through device-level Location Services,” a Google spokesperson said in a statement to the AP. “We provide clear descriptions of these tools, and robust controls so people can turn them on or off, and delete their histories at any time.”

federation of easily remixable content

export books as apps

the unit size of higher ed will begin to change from a traditional four-year on-campus bundled experience to more of a course-based experience