The learned Dr. Guy Patin says: “On dit que M. de Meziriac avoit corrigé dans son Amyot huit mille fautes, et qu’Amyot n’avoit pas de bons exemplaires, ou qu’il n’avoit pas bien entendu le Grec de Plutarque.”3

all the great ideas come um with a price tag of it's maybe a mistake

when we analyze what is happening in the brain when we are doing a mistake then we we see that a lot of different areas active when one region is missing the region for fear

Typewriters make me a more fo-cused and disciplined writer. Theydon’t forgive. It’s like fi ring a gunwith every stroke. You can’t retractthe bullet. If you misspell, the type-writer won’t correct it for you. Youhave to plow on.

Mistakes are part of creativity.

Warning: The client should not repeat this request without modification.

The third advantage of imitation: copiers can evade mistakes by steering clearof the errors made by others who went before them, while innovators have nosuch guide to potential pitfalls.

We also know people need a good sized group and time to see the impact and value of a platform like Stack Overflow for Teams. Our previous 30 day free trial of our Basic tier wasn’t long enough. Now, Stack Overflow for Teams has a free tier for up to 50 users, forever.

Thanks for pointing out my poor wording in the review. You are of course, correct. I will edit the review accordingly.

always use real <label for="correct_input"> elements. Just that alone is a UX consideration all too many forms fail on

now that I realize how easy it is to just manually include this in my app: <%= javascript_include_tag 'xray', nonce: true if Rails.env.development? %> I regret even wasting my time getting it to automatically look for and add a nonce to the auto-injected xray.js script

The new 2.1 version comes with a few necessary but reasonable changes in method signatures. As painful as that might sound to your Rails-spoiled ears, we preferred to fix design mistakes now before dragging them on forever.

The new call API is much more consistent and takes away another thing we kept explaining to new users - an indicator for a flawed API.

There are a few intentional behavioral differences between Dart Sass and Ruby Sass. These are generally places where Ruby Sass has an undesired behavior, and it's substantially easier to implement the correct behavior than it would be to implement compatible behavior. These should all have tracking bugs against Ruby Sass to update the reference behavior.

It’s a risky blanket statement that causes bloat by including all the mistakes you made while building the original product.

And on the topic of this particular article you need to own bigger mistakes too. It doesn't matter if the Apache board genuinely believed in 2014 that this was a good idea, it should now be obvious to everyone that it wasn't. Board members allowing it to continue can't fall back to "Well we didn't know...", because they do now. Every day that they have the evidence in front of them that the project is failing and do nothing they're _culpable_ for that as members of the board.

Own the mistake. Say to yourself "I am human and I screw up sometimes" and remember that when you see somebody else screw up too.

What we actually want to do is to escape content if it is unsafe, but leave it unescaped if it is safe. To achieve this we can simply use SafeBuffer's concatenation behavior:

Our helper still returns a safe string, but correctly escapes content if it is unsafe. Note how much more flexible our group helper has become because it now works as expected with both safe and unsafe arguments. We can now leave it up to the caller whether to mark input as safe or not, and we no longer need to make any assumptions about the safeness of content.

Decisions should be thoughtful, but delivering fast results requires the fearless acceptance of occasionally making mistakes; our bias for action also allows us to course correct quickly.

Not every problem should lead to a new process to prevent them. Additional processes make all actions more inefficient, a mistake only affects one.

Because immutable components also prevent their children from re-rendering, they should probably not have non-immutable children.

Null Components should never have children - they'd never be rendered.

Injector components should never be self-closing, and they should never wrap multiple children. We can fix this at code-time and not wait for the errors at runtime.

I had even written about context collapse myself, but that hadn’t saved me from falling into it, and then hurting other people I didn’t mean to hurt.

I am not immune from these mistakes, for mistaking a limited snapshot of something for what it is in its entirety. I have been on the other side.

an

lied

The key is know that the curse exists.  To be able to recognize the challenge before you.

Mistakes are not just opportunities for learning; they are, in an important sense, the only opportunity for learning or making something truly new. Before there can be learning, there must be learners. There are only two non-miraculous ways for learners to come into existence: they must either evolve or be designed and built by learners that evolved. Biological evolution proceeds by a grand, inexorable process of trial and error — and without the errors the trials wouldn’t accomplish anything.

We philosophers are mistake specialists. … While other disciplines specialize in getting the right answers to their defining questions, we philosophers specialize in all the ways there are of getting things so mixed up, so deeply wrong, that nobody is even sure what the right questions are, let alone the answers. Asking the wrong questions risks setting any inquiry off on the wrong foot. Whenever that happens, this is a job for philosophers! Philosophy — in every field of inquiry — is what you have to do until you figure out what questions you should have been asking in the first place.

The history of philosophy is in large measure the history of very smart people making very tempting mistakes, and if you don’t know the history, you are doomed to making the same darn mistakes all over again. … There is no such thing as philosophy-free science, just science that has been conducted without any consideration of its underlying philosophical assumptions.

Instead, we tried really hard to not hire those people, and we let them go if it turned out we’d made a hiring mistake.