In that second file let’s put all the other evidence we have linking Adnan to the actual crime, the actual killing
challenges the common expectation in criminal cases that physical evidence should be present to directly link the suspect to the crime. The lack of such evidence in Adnan's case is a shocking and pivotal element, which raises doubts about the prosecution's argument.
Namely, Jay’s shiftingstatements to police and how the cell tower information didn’t fully match Jay’s narrative
These call records do not fully support Adnan's defense, nor do they clearly prove his whereabouts at the time of the crime. In fact, there are some ambiguous parts in these records, which lead her to question whether the investigation may have missed some crucial clues or, whether intentionally or unintentionally, misled the progress of the case.
He’s been shot...
In the previous chapters, Mr. Justice Wargrave acted suspicious, but it turned out that he died.
Philip Lombard was dead - shot through the hear
In And Then There Were None, Lombard's death is indeed caused by Vera Claythorne. In the final stages of the story, overwhelmed by psychological pressure and fear, Vera shoots Lombard. This act is a reflection of her complex inner turmoil and the story's tense atmosphere. This twist is shocking for readers and adds to the overall tragic feel of the narrative.
Dr. Armstrong.”Lombard gave a low whistle.“The doctor, eh? You know, I should have put him last of all.
Lombard and Vera have a disagreement during a seemingly peaceful conversation, and based on the subsequent text, Vera appears to be quite convinced of her suspicions.
Moreover, your goal in college classes is not just to remember the information for a test, but it is tobuild on that foundational knowledge to learn different levels of thinking
10/22surprising:When we enter the college we not just memorize the textbook, we have read a lot of text and do a lot of critical thinking.
“My friend,” said Dupin, in a kind tone, “you are alarming yourself unnecessarily — you are indeed. We mean you no harm whatever. I pledge you the honor of a gentleman, and of a Frenchman, that we intend you no injury. I perfectly well know that you are innocent of the atrocities in the Rue Morgue.{z} It will not do, however, to deny that you are in some measure implicated in them. [page 564:] From what I have already said, you must know that I have had means of information about this matter — means of which you could never have dreamed. Now the thing stands thus. You have done nothing which you could have avoided — nothing, certainly, which renders you culpable.
it must be really odd to point out that, the sailor is kind of innocent. nnocent of any intentional wrongdoing. His only crime, if it can be called that, was failing to control his pet. The orangutan's actions were driven by its animal instincts, not human malice, which adds to the peculiarity of the case.
Start with your childhood, I tell the
9/30 surprising: I always can’t start smoothly. This gives me a good idea to start next time.
Because for some of us, books are as important as almostanything else on earth.
9/30 Surprising : This mean books means the world to most writers, i didn't even know about that !
n, I couldn't think of a single restaurantwhere I'd ever actually eate
9/30 Surprising: I thought it’s command to remember the restaurant I’ve been to, until I read this sentence and find out that I can’t even remembered which restaurant I’ve been to yesterday.
This, under the circumstances, has been justly characterized by one of the witnesses {cc}(Montani, the confectioner,){cc} as an expression of remonstrance or expostulation.
Not only was I surprised, but the witnesses in the story were as well. This surprise could be related to the truth being revealed or the curiosity about who is responsible.
We had been talking of horses, if I remember aright, just before leaving the Rue C———. This was the last subject we discussed. As we crossed into this street, a fruiterer, with a large basket upon his head, brushing quickly past us, thrust you upon a pile of paving-stones collected at a spot where the causeway is undergoing repair. You stepped upon one of the loose fragments, slipped, slightly strained your ankle, appeared vexed or sulky, muttered a few words, turned to look{m} at the pile, and then proceeded in silence. I was not particularly attentive to what you did; but observation has become with me, of late, a species of necessity. “You kept your eyes upon the ground — glancing, with a petulant expression, at the holes and ruts in the pavement, (so that I saw you were still thinking of the stones,) until we reached the little alley called Lamartine,(18) which has been paved, by way of [page 536:] experiment, with the overlapping and riveted blocks.(19) Here your countenance brightened up, and, perceiving your lips move, I could not doubt that you murmured{n} the{oo} word ‘stereotomy,’ a term very affectedly applied to this species of pavement.{oo} I knew that you could not {pp}say to yourself ‘stereotomy’ without{pp}, being brought to think of atomies, and thus of the theories of Epicurus;(20) and since{q} when we discussed this subject not very long ago, I mentioned to you how singularly, yet with how little notice, the vague guesses of that noble Greek had met with confirmation in the late nebular cosmogony, I felt that you could not avoid casting your eyes upward{r} to the great nebula{s} in Orion,(21) and I certainly expected that you would do so. You did look up; and I was now{t} assured that I had correctly followed your steps. But in that bitter tirade upon Chantilly, which appeared in yesterday's ‘Musée,’ the satirist, making some disgraceful allusions to the cobbler's change of name upon assuming the buskin, quoted a{u} Latin line{v} about which{w} we have often conversed.
This part surprised me a lot. I also find it creepy as the first time I read it, for all the narrator’s movement were observed and memorized by Dupin. It feels like the narrator stayed with a monitor. What’s more, Dupin can even follow up the narrator’s mind.
in whose tones, even, denizens of the five great divisions of Europe could recognise nothing familiar! You will say that it might have been the voice of an Asiatic
When it comes to the crime, we will assume that it is committed by human, so the unusual sound could be interpreted as the terrified scream of the women or the shout of the murder; however, it couldn’t be recognized as any kinds of language, implying that the murderer might not be a human.
on Mr. Smith attempting to go into another room for his pistols, the monkey leaped on his back with the speed of lightning, made various efforts to reach his throat, broke his watch guard assunder in rage, and, dropping to the [page 523:] ground, bit his leg, and again fled to the basin-stand. Mr. Smith pursued him and flung him off many times in his leaping attacks. After skirmishing a considerable time, the worried animal dashed through the window, carrying the frame and glass along with him.
All these incidents and fights happened in seconds, making the readers nervous and scared as if we were there. Meanwhile, it gave me a shock about the intelligence and strength of the animal, for it almost hit him every single time! This is the most surprising part for me to know the power of the Pongo pygmaeus.
“I will explain,” he said, “and that you may comprehend all clearly, we will first retrace the course of your meditations, from the moment in which I spoke to you until that of the rencontre{j} with the fruiterer in question. The larger links of the chain run thus — Chantilly, Orion, Dr. Nichol,{k} (16) Epicurus, Stereotomy, the street stones, the fruiterer.” There are few persons who have not, at some period of their lives, amused themselves in retracing the steps by which particular conclusions of their own minds have been attained. The occupation is often full of interest; and he who attempts it for the first time is{l} astonished by the apparently illimitable distance and incoherence between the starting-point and the goal.(17) What, then, must have been my amazement when I heard the Frenchman speak what he had just spoken, and when I could not help acknowledging that he had spoken the truth. He continued: “We had been talking of horses, if I remember aright, just before leaving the Rue C———. This was the last subject we discussed. As we crossed into this street, a fruiterer, with a large basket upon his head, brushing quickly past us, thrust you upon a pile of paving-stones collected at a spot where the causeway is undergoing repair. You stepped upon one of the loose fragments, slipped, slightly strained your ankle, appeared vexed or sulky, muttered a few words, turned to look{m} at the pile, and then proceeded in silence. I was not particularly attentive to what you did; but observation has become with me, of late, a species of necessity. “You kept your eyes upon the ground — glancing, with a petulant expression, at the holes and ruts in the pavement, (so that I saw you were still thinking of the stones,) until we reached the little alley called Lamartine,(18) which has been paved, by way of [page 536:] experiment, with the overlapping and riveted blocks.(19) Here your countenance brightened up, and, perceiving your lips move, I could not doubt that you murmured{n} the{oo} word ‘stereotomy,’ a term very affectedly applied to this species of pavement.{oo} I knew that you could not {pp}say to yourself ‘stereotomy’ without{pp}, being brought to think of atomies, and thus of the theories of Epicurus;(20) and since{q} when we discussed this subject not very long ago, I mentioned to you how singularly, yet with how little notice, the vague guesses of that noble Greek had met with confirmation in the late nebular cosmogony, I felt that you could not avoid casting your eyes upward{r} to the great nebula{s} in Orion,(21) and I certainly expected that you would do so. You did look up; and I was now{t} assured that I had correctly followed your steps. But in that bitter tirade upon Chantilly, which appeared in yesterday's ‘Musée,’ the satirist, making some disgraceful allusions to the cobbler's change of name upon assuming the buskin, quoted a{u} Latin line{v} about which{w} we have often conversed. I mean the line {xx}Perdidit antiquum litera prima sonum{xx} I had told you that this was in reference to Orion, formerly written Urion; and, from certain pungencies connected with this explanation, I was aware that you could not have forgotten it.(22) It was clear, therefore, that you would not fail to combine the two ideas of Orion and Chantilly. That you did combine them I saw by the character of the smile which passed over your lips. You thought of the poor cobbler's immolation. So far, you had been stooping in your gait; but now I saw you draw yourself up to your full height. I was then sure that you reflected upon the diminutive figure of Chantilly. At this point I interrupted your meditations to remark [page 537:] that as, in fact, he was a very little fellow — that Chantilly — he would do better at the Théâtre des Variétés.”{y}
I'm surprised that Poe, as the pioneer of detective literature, can come up with such a deliberate and coherent process of thinking.
Between ingenuity and the analytic ability there exists a difference far greater, indeed, than that between the fancy and the imagination, but of a character very strictly analogous. It will be found, in fact, that the ingenious are always fanciful, and the truly{b} imaginative never otherwise than{c} analytic.
I've never doubted the similarity between being fanciful and imaginative, yet it seems that imagination is often grounded in logical understanding while fancy is associated with whimsical thinking. True genius lies in the combination of imagination and analytic ability.
A chess-player, for example, does the one without effort at the other. It follows that the game of chess, in its effects upon mental character, is greatly misunderstood. I am not now writing a treatise, but simply prefacing a somewhat peculiar narrative by observations very much at random; I will, therefore, take occasion to assert that the higher powers of the reflective intellect are more decidedly and more usefully tasked{e} by the unostentatious game of draughts than by all the elaborate frivolity of chess. In this latter, where the pieces have different and bizarre{f} motions, with various and variable values, what{g} is only complex is mistaken (a not unusual error) for what{h} is profound. The attention is here called powerfully into play. If it flag for an instant, an oversight is committed, resulting in injury or defeat. The possible moves being not only manifold but involute, the chances of such oversights are multiplied; and in nine cases out of ten it is the more concentrative rather than the more acute player who conquers. In draughts, on the contrary, where the moves are unique{i} and have but little variation, the probabilities of inadvertence are diminished, [page 529:] and the mere attention being left comparatively unemployed, what advantages are obtained by either party are obtained by superior acumen.
This surprised me, as I initially thought both games should be played with a unique move to mess up the opponent's plan. Instead, because of the lack of possible moves in chess, the moves will not be as unique as playing draughts.
There is also a well-known story of a pet monkey, who, imitating his master shaving himself, cut his own throat.
I find this part surprising because it demonstrates the bizarre and tragic consequences of animals mimicking human behavior. I never expected that a monkey could imitate something as complex as shaving with such disastrous results.
There is also a story, still sometimes told by stage comedians, about a barber's pet monkey who, in the absence of his master from the shop, essayed to shave a customer with disastrous results.
Probably because Poe was deeply influenced by Voltaire, a man committed in breaking conventional social norms. Hence the absurd story.
The analytical power should not be confounded with simple ingenuity; for while the analyst is necessarily ingenious, the ingenious man is often remarkably{z} incapable of analysis.
This may surprise you because it suggests that being clever doesn’t mean someone can analyze things well, which goes against the common belief that cleverness and analytical skill go hand in hand.
As the strong man exults in his physical ability, delighting in such exercises as call his muscles into action,(1) so glories the analyst in that moral activity which disentangles.
Although the wording is quite complex and difficult throughout the passage, but I think with this explanation makes me understand it better. (a man showing muscles just like analyst solving problems, both have its own happiness)
I can confirm that this is still actual for Rails 7 - jpEg converts to jpg and your production fails.
Ain't it possible that every message I send or forward will just be replaced to the outbox and will be send by Thunderbird in the background ? I really hate it that every message sends itself away, running on top of all other windows, and it makes me wait till it has been sent from reading my other messages...
Personally I don’t find necessary to see the whole progress of how a mail is sent step-by-step, I just want to send the e-mail. Can’t understand why they are showing me all these but anyway
She grades their results as if they haddone the writing entirely on their own.
Surprising: This definitely surprised me seeing a professor going so far as to treat the result as if the students have done the writing entirely on their own. It definitely clashed with my previously held belief.
That small number may simply reflect that professors who hadexperimented with AI — even if they concluded it is a danger to learning —probably had more reason to write to us.
Many students don’t know how to use AI correctly.
Law redesigned her first-year writing course to include weekly “AI infused”discussion threads and assignments.
I am surprised that there is a class about the law of AI.
That small number may simply reflect that professors who hadexperimented with AI — even if they concluded it is a danger to learning —probably had more reason to write to us.
It was surprising for professors to realize that many students had limited knowledge about AI
The input format of the xargs command doesn't match what any other command produces.
The input format of the xargs command doesn't match what any other command produces. Yes, it's bizarre. With -I, xargs ignores indentation, which is why the file names with initial spaces are mangled. Do not use xargs except with the -0 option or when you know your input doesn't contain characters that would confuse it.
Why would a text message service require Location (GPS) permissions? Anyway I enabled this Location permission for testing. Heureka!!! Suddenly I was able to send text messages again to all the contacts which previously didn't work. The "Not sent, tap to try again" error was gone.
i commissioned some original polling for my book from abacus research and i found some very hopeful stuff and you know the public gets the emergency and incidentally i've tried to recast 00:12:46 some of the the extreme weather events we've experienced as attacks on our soil let's think about them that way yeah um and they're ready for bold action actually the public is ahead of our politics in terms of that i was surprised to see 00:12:58 that you even mentioned in alberta the numbers are much higher than you so you mentioned quebec before so the the opinion polling nationally ranges from a high in quebec in terms of their readiness fraction right to a low in alberta but even in alberta 00:13:12 the level of support is remarkably high
The first example needs a custom inflection rule: loader.inflector.inflect("max_retries" => "MAX_RETRIES") Otherwise, Zeitwerk would expect the file to define MaxRetries.
Potential problem. What if you need it both ways? A constant named MAX_RETRIES within a certain namespace, but also a higher-level MaxRetries class? Guess you'd have to work around it, probably by just defining MAX_RETRIES inside its parent module...
Note that the mere presence of this header causes premailer to be skipped, i.e., even setting skip_premailer: false will cause premailer to be skipped. The reason for that is that the skip_premailer is a simple header and the value is transformed into a string, causing 'false' to become truthy.
They should fix this!
lib/premailer/rails/hook.rb
def skip_premailer_header_present?
message.header[:skip_premailer]
end
It seems that the method is a direct equivalent of a.fdiv(b).ceil, and as such, annoyingly unnecessary, but fdiv, due to floating point imprecision, might produce surprising results in edge cases
I agree with this statement so much. We should absolutely be failing hard rather than forcing people to debug thread safety issues at runtime. I can't think of anything more infuriating than debugging an issue that happens "sometimes".
The problem is that in the case where an app is multi-threaded, and we don't switch off autoload, the case would be that it probably won't blow up, but random stuff will mysteriously sometimes fail in weird ways. So ask yourself this, what would you rather want, option 1) where you can get an exception at runtime, or option 2) where you get random, unpredictable, weird, hard to explain, difficult to debug bugs at runtime. Personally, I'm going to choose option 1. The downside of thread-safety issues is so much worse than the downside of the possibility of an exception. The way you're handling it makes it sound as though thread-safety is not important, as though Rails is still optimizing for the single-threaded case. That seems like a huge step back.
It may seem like Testing is some sort of beta, unstable version but that’s not entirely true. Debian Testing is the next Debian stable version. The actual development branch is the Debian Unstable (also known as Sid). Debian Testing lies somewhere in between the unstable and stable branch where it gets the new features before the stable release.
Have you ever: Been disappointed, surprised or hurt by a library etc. that had a bug that could have been fixed with inheritance and few lines of code, but due to private / final methods and classes were forced to wait for an official patch that might never come? I have. Wanted to use a library for a slightly different use case than was imagined by the authors but were unable to do so because of private / final methods and classes? I have.
Been disappointed, surprised or hurt by a library etc. that was overly permissive in it's extensibility? I have not.
No, in Python "[ [] foo [] boo [][]] ".strip(" []") returns "foo [] boo".
I would have expected it would remove the string " []", not the occurrences of any of the characters within the string...
I was very surprised to discover that Finder has no native SFTP integration. As an everyday Gnome user, it is unbelievable to me, how this can even be
**Use Page Notes to add annotation guidance.
INSTRUCTIONS - Make 5 new annotations using the prompts below and respond to 3 others. Use text, hashtags, emojis, and G-rated language. Be respectful always.
PROMPTS - Annotate the text for each of the following: 1. Main claim, and why you think so. 2. Evidence that supports the claim and what additional information would make the evidence stronger. 3. Reasoning that connects the evidence to the claim (or if it's missing). 4. Something new or surprising you learned from this paper. 5. What could be the researchers' next experiment?
dependent: :destroy associations are deleted when performing soft-destroys requiring any dependent records to also be acts_as_paranoid to avoid losing data.
I've worked with and have helped maintain paranoia for a while. I'm convinced it does the wrong thing for most cases. Paranoia and acts_as_paranoid both attempt to emulate deletes by setting a column and adding a default scope on the model. This requires some ActiveRecord hackery, and leads to some surprising and awkward behaviour.
paranoia has some surprising behaviour (like overriding ActiveRecord's delete and destroy)
This still seems like a bug, as the expected behavior doesn't occur and it's difficult (for someone unfamiliar with the inner workings of ActionMailer) to debug. I spent a good half an hour figuring out the work around, so I'm trying to prevent others from experiencing the same thing.
However after doing a bit of testing I see that this character is not used to represent missing glyphs on either my Windows 7 computer or the Android phone I've tested with (Motorola Atrix).
I just spent a day dismantling a model, trying to find the cause of the silent rollback - taking out every association, every validation, every callback, whittling down all the code in the transaction, only to finally discover that it was return true that was the cause of it all. Or yes, an exception!
I think I had expected that existing rails developers would discover this problem in existing code through the deprecation warning to avoid a nasty surprise. I'm worried about my future kids learning Rails and writing perfectly looking Ruby code just to learn the hard way that return is sometimes a nono! Jokes aside, I think that no one expected that the deprecation will turn into silent rollbacks. This is a very controversial change, pretty much everyone taking part in the discussion on the deprecation PR raised some concerns about the potential consequences of this change. The only thing that was making it easier to swallow was the promise of making it clear to the user by throwing an exception after the rollback.
Note: For keyword parameters, use @param, not @option.
I sure was looking for @option (knowing already about @param) and assuming/expecting that (if it exists) it would totally be the right thing to use for documenting keyword parameters. So I was quite surprised to see this much-needed warning (for me and others like me who came here expecting/assuming the same thing).
then two different listeners/renderers switching magically between each other based on the header being present or not, without the end user being informed or clear about this
This is actually the most correct answer, because it explains why people (like me) are suddenly seeing this warning after nearly a decade of using git. However,it would be useful if some guidance were given on the options offered. for example, pointing out that setting pull.ff to "only" doesn't prevent you doing a "pull --rebase" to override it.
This was a surprise to me, since we generally authenticate the record quite well, but then go on to do something like record.file.url in our view, generating a URL that is permanent and unauthenticated.
Explicitly defining the dependency in the reactive declarations
inputValue = updateInputValue(value);
maybe this just comes down to general footguns with reactivity, and being aware of them as a developer.
if you put the reactive statement $: validate(inputValue); after the function updateInputValue declaration, it's working as expected:
So now the question is, why does Session, an interface, not get implicit index signatures while SessionType, an identically-structured typealias, *does*? Surely, you might again think, the compiler does not simply deny implicit index signatures tointerface` types? Surprisingly enough, this is exactly what happens. See microsoft/TypeScript#15300, specifically this comment: Just to fill people in, this behavior is currently by design. Because interfaces can be augmented by additional declarations but type aliases can't, it's "safer" (heavy quotes on that one) to infer an implicit index signature for type aliases than for interfaces. But we'll consider doing it for interfaces as well if that seems to make sense And there you go. You cannot use a Session in place of a WithAdditionalParams<Session> because it's possible that someone might merge properties that conflict with the index signature at some later date. Whether or not that is a compelling reason is up for rather vigorous debate, as you can see if you read through microsoft/TypeScript#15300.
therefore in practice it's a bit academic to worry about which lines inside that block the compiler should be happy or unhappy about. From falsehood, anythihng follows. So the compiler is free to say "if the impossible happens, then X is an error" or "if the impossible happens, then X is not an error". Both are valid (although one might be more or less surprising to developers).
I don't like that I can't really use head? to know it's a HEAD request, but I (think I) understand the reasoning
Hello, maksimets: code blocks using triple backticks (```) don't work on all versions of Reddit!Some users see this / this instead.
.isnumeric() matches 430 Unicode codepoints in the BMP that float() won't accept, and there are codepoints that .isdigit() returns true for that are also not convertible.
Note that & is a line terminator like ; (write command& not command&;).
The plain, unstyled emails resulted in more opens, clicks, replies, and conversions, every time.
The plain email—which took no time to design or code—was opened by more recipients and had 3.3x more clicks than the designed email.
the lack of touchscreen support is an odd omission considering both games previously appeared on 3DS and Wii U,
.
Every player I've introduced this game to has looked at me as if to say, "We must be doing something wrong." But no, that game is designed that way.
It's strange to me that the text returned is in all caps (how it's styled after CSS), but the matcher is actually testing against the text in the unstyled HTML. I spent a while digging through the source code and I still can't figure out why this works.
If you change a form value to '', Final Form will set the value in its state to undefined. This can be counterintutive, because '' !== undefined in javascript.
How is the phrase
including the production of meaning used in this article, yet the word "semantics" does not appear even once?
At least https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meaning_(semiotics) ("semantics" appears exactly 1 time in that article) has a link to the article on semantics.
Seems like a missed opportunity to answer what to me is a very first immediate question that I wonder (and now I wonder if it really is a FAQ or if it's just me who wonders): how is semiotics different from semantics?
But I guess https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semiotics is a better place to look for that answer, and it answers that when it says:
he defined semiotics as grouped into three branches:
Athena is still in production use at MIT. It works as software (currently a set of Debian packages)[2] that makes a machine a thin client, that will download educational applications from the MIT servers on demand
I don't get it. Can someone please explain? I've upgraded my Rails project to Sprockets 4, just to get source maps in production. Instead I got sourcemaps in development?
So, despite your code is type safe it is not safe to be used.
My only concern with this approach is that if someone calls #valid? on the form object afterwards, it would under the hood currently delete the existing errors on the form object and revalidate. The could have unexpected side effects where the errors added by the models passed in or the service called will be lost.
My concern with this approach is still that it's somewhat brittle with the current implementation of valid? because whilst valid? appears to be a predicate and should have no side effects, this is not the case and could remove the errors applied by one of the steps above.
Another problem I found with Reform is the synchronisation with models. The object you passed in argument to reform does not have the same value than the form.
@conference_form.submit(conference_params)
Surprised they called it submit, since that could imply that you're triggering an action called submit.
They use other verbs to describe this:
Analogous to Reform's sync / sync_models method.
Actually, the name makes a lot of sense when you see it in context:
@conference_form = ConferenceForm.new(conference)
@conference_form.submit(conference_params)
if @conference_form.save
100vw is 100% of the viewport width not accounting for scrollbars (unless the root element has anything other than overflow: auto set, but auto is the default value). Thus, when the page content overflows the viewport vertically, the browser renders the vertical scroll bar, which reduces the visible viewport area by a few pixels. But the 100vw value doesn't update to account for this, so the selected div retains the same width as before the vertical scrollbar appeared. This results in the horizontal scroll bar rendering.
Now, however, you set width:100vw and that is going to be (in this case) 100% wide (viewport wide) + the vertical scrollbar width. That’s too wide. That induces the HORIZONTAL scrollbar.
This is funny because it’s unexpected. Cache invalidation sounds like a hard thing, while naming sounds more straightforward. The joke works because it violates our expectation that hard things should be technical. It’s also funny because it’s true.
In 2025 we plan to
Surely this is a typo and should have said 2020? Nobody would make such a specific tech plan for 5.5 years in the future ... would they?
It seems like this should be one of the easiest things to understand in CSS. If you want a block-level element to fill any remaining space inside of its parent, then it’s simple — just add width: 100% in your CSS declaration for that element, and your problem is solved. Not so fast. It’s not quite that easy. I’m sure CSS developers of all skill levels have attempted something similar to what I’ve just described, with bizarre results ultimately leading to head scratching and shruggingly resorting to experimenting with absolute widths until we find just the right fit. This is just one of those things in CSS that seems easy to understand (and really, it should be), but it’s sometimes not — because of the way that percentages work in CSS.
min-width: 0;
Wouldn't expect the solution to "width grows too wide" to be to assign a (seemingly meaningless, since how could it be less than 0) a minimum width of 0.
I would have expected to solve this by applying a max-width to the problem element or one of its ancestors.
It won't work if $HOME is not under /home. Really. Not even if you softlink. You need a bind mount
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.
What I think is happening is that instantiating the component is immediately running the $: reactive code, which dispatches the event synchronously, before the parent component attaches the listener.
But now Chromium is no more available as deb, so what to expect ?
Note that when using sass (Dart Sass), synchronous compilation is twice as fast as asynchronous compilation by default, due to the overhead of asynchronous callbacks.
If you consider using asynchronous to be an optimization, then this could be surprising.
I also tried to use <!-- svelte-ignore unused-export-let --> before the script tag but still no chance.
This mirrors how classes already work and avoids the issues with introducing an unexpected DOM node.
I came up with this solution by piecing together man pages and random google result. I was surprised at how many incomplete and inaccurate answers were out there. What may have been more surprising was the complete lack of a full intact solution.
I debugged docker-compose and docker-py and figured out that you should either use environment variables or options in command. You should not mix these . If you even specify --tls in command then you will have to specify all the options as the TLSConfig object, as now TLSConfig object is created completely from the command options and operide the TFSConfig object created from the environment variable.
docker --tlsverify ps executes just fine, while docker-compose --tlsverify up -d --force-recreate gives me an error: SSL error: [SSL: CERTIFICATE_VERIFY_FAILED] certificate verify failed
I only have one set of certs. And I can't see how they can be different because docker commands work using the endpoint. It's just the docker-compose command that fails
docker-compose command you can not mix environment variable and command option. You can specify setting in env variable and then just use docker-compose ps. The connection will be secured with TLS protocol if DOCKER_TLS_VERIFY variable is set.
You dont need to pass --tls or --tlsverify option in the docker-config path as the task already sets DOCKER_TSL_VERIFY environment varaible. I debugged docker-compose and docker-py library and verified that if you pass any flag --tls or --tlsverify flag it tries to create tslConfig object out of options and not from environment
I debugged docker-compose and docker-py and figured out that you should either use environment variables or options in command. You should not mix these . If you even specify --tls in command then you will have to specify all the options as the TLSConfig object, as now TLSConfig object is created completely from the command options and operide the TFSConfig object created from the environment variable.
Library author here. I'm always fascinated by new ways people can invalidate my assumptions. I mean that in a sincerely positive way, as it results in learning.
My version of https://svelte.dev/repl/9c7d12357a15457bb914705702f156d1?version=3.19.2 from https://github.com/sveltejs/svelte/issues/4586
to try to simplify and help me understand it better.
So the lack of synchronousness is only noticed inside handleClick.
By the time the DOM gets updated, it has a consistent/correct state.
In other words, the console.log shows wrong value, but template shows correct value. So this might not be an actual problem for many/most use cases.
When using a method in a top-level object to modify its state, such object isn't updated either.
I too have been confused by behavior like this. Perhaps a clearly defined way to isolate atomic units with synchronous reactivity would help those of us still working through the idiosyncrasies of reactivity.
For performance reasons, $: reactive blocks are batched up and run in the next microtask. This is the expected behavior. This is one of the things that we should talk about when we figure out how and where we want to have a section in the docs that goes into more details about reactivity. If you want something that updates synchronously and depends on another value, you can use a derived store:
I expected that the param being passed by reference to have the same reactivity of the variable being created in the script tag.
One would expect the display to be updated, but it is not... WHY is it updated the 2nd time you enter something? What is different?
You can imagine how big of a surprise was finding out that model/character being a child of model/node causes an error when we import model/position.
To fix our Svelte version you might think we could use beforeUpdate or afterUpdate, but these lifecycle functions are related to the DOM being updated, not to prop updates. We only want to rerun our fetching when the album prop is changed.
If the user now clicks Back again, the URL bar will display https://www.mozilla.org/foo.html, and totally bypass bar.html.
There'll be no more warnings. But if you open bundle.js, you'll see something shocking: it contains the entirety of React and React DOM. That's 7000 LoC!
Basically, the idea is that a train tried to start with the caboose brakes stuck on. After releasing the caboose, the train still could not start. The problem was that when the train attempted to start with the caboose brake on, it stretched all the inter-car couplings so that the whole train was just like one big car. At this point, the friction from the engine train wheels was not enough to get the whole thing going. Instead, you need to just get one car moving at a time - this is why there is space between the couplings.
Most simple example: <script> import ChildComponent from './Child.svelte'; </script> <style> .class-to-add { background-color: tomato; } </style> <ChildComponent class="class-to-add" /> ...compiles to CSS without the class-to-add declaration, as svelte currently does not recognize the class name as being used. I'd expect class-to-add is bundled with all nested style declarations class-to-add is passed to ChildComponent as class-to-add svelte-HASH This looks like a bug / missing feature to me.
It's fashionable to dislike CSS. There are lots of reasons why that's the case, but it boils down to this: CSS is unpredictable. If you've never had the experience of tweaking a style rule and accidentally breaking some layout that you thought was completely unrelated — usually when you're trying to ship — then you're either new at this or you're a much better programmer than the rest of us.
Now I know what you're thinking, "this is an atrocity, what a horrible mess!" and you're right, it's kind of ugly. In fact it's just about impossible to think this is a good idea the first time you see it — you have to actually try it.
yup.object.default({ number: 5 }); // object will be cloned every time a default is needed yup.object.default(() => ({ number: 5 })); // this is cheaper
Cloning an object is considered expensive?? Why?
yup.object.default({ number: 5 }); // object will be cloned every time a default is needed yup.object.default(() => ({ number: 5 })); // this is cheaper
Cloning an object is considered expensive?? Why?
yup.object.default({ number: 5 }); // object will be cloned every time a default is needed yup.object.default(() => ({ number: 5 })); // this is cheaper
Cloning an object is considered expensive?? Why?
yup.object.default({ number: 5 }); // object will be cloned every time a default is needed yup.object.default(() => ({ number: 5 })); // this is cheaper
Cloning an object is considered expensive?? Why?
yup.object.default({ number: 5 }); // object will be cloned every time a default is needed yup.object.default(() => ({ number: 5 })); // this is cheaper
Cloning an object is considered expensive?? Why?
yup.object.default({ number: 5 }); // object will be cloned every time a default is needed yup.object.default(() => ({ number: 5 })); // this is cheaper
Cloning an object is considered expensive?? Why?
yup.object.default({ number: 5 }); // object will be cloned every time a default is needed yup.object.default(() => ({ number: 5 })); // this is cheaper
Cloning an object is considered expensive?? Why?
yup.object.default({ number: 5 }); // object will be cloned every time a default is needed yup.object.default(() => ({ number: 5 })); // this is cheaper
Cloning an object is considered expensive?? Why?
I'm just trying out the "Reply to comment" button here. Well, it seems like it doesn't quote the text... that's really the feature I'd like to exposed. When responding to a large message (email or otherwise), I like to quote various parts and respond in line.
Nevertheless, this is quite confusing and has lead to a recently reported issue on the Webpacker GitHub repository.
The inherent stealth conversion into Sets is not a good idea in my book.
To me the difference between [1,1,2,2,3,3] and [1,2,3] is not []
Code doing surprising and slightly nonsensical things... I'm weary now. And that's with ruby being more consistent than most!
One may expect Array#- to behave like mathematical subtraction or difference when it doesn't. One could be forgiven to expect the following behavior: [1,1,2,2,3,3,4,4] - [1,2,3,4] => [1,2,3,4]
I'll freely admit I was surprised by this behavior myself since I needed to obtain an Array with only one instance of each item in the argument array removed.
However, a ActiveRecord::Rollback within the nested transaction will be caught by the block of the nested transaction, but will be ignored by the outer transaction, and not cause a roll back! To avoid this unexpected behaviour, you have to explicitly tell rails for each transaction to indeed use proper nesting: CopyActiveRecord::Base.transaction(joinable: false, requires_new: true) do # inner code end This is a safer default for working with custom transactions.
transaction calls can be nested. By default, this makes all database statements in the nested transaction block become part of the parent transaction. For example, the following behavior may be surprising: User.transaction do User.create(username: 'Kotori') User.transaction do User.create(username: 'Nemu') raise ActiveRecord::Rollback end end creates both “Kotori” and “Nemu”. Reason is the ActiveRecord::Rollback exception in the nested block does not issue a ROLLBACK. Since these exceptions are captured in transaction blocks, the parent block does not see it and the real transaction is committed.
How is this okay??
When would it ever be the desired/intended behavior for a raise ActiveRecord::Rollback to have absolutely no effect? What good is the transaction then??
What happened to the principle of least surprise?
Is there any reason we shouldn't just always use requires_new: true?
If, like they say, the inner transaction "become[s] part of the parent transaction", then if anything, it should roll back the parent transaction too — not roll back nothing.
You might not care today, but your approach doesn’t allow you to have multiple spaces (Philippines 6014), leading spaces, trailing spaces, or tabs.
Chances are that you think that you can compile a Ruby binary on a certain OS, and that users using that same OS can use your Ruby binary. Not quite. Not even when they run the same OS version as you do.
If we find that GitLab doesn't work as people expect, the documentation should be updated so this is no longer a surprise. This applies whether we classify it as a feature request or a bug.
Unexpected features “Unexpected” features are those that are unrelated to the add-on’s primary function, and are not likely from the add-on name or description to be expected by a user installing that add-on. Should an add-on include any unexpected feature that falls into one of the following categories: Potentially compromises user privacy or security (like sending data to third parties) Changes default settings like the new tab page, homepage or search engine Makes unexpected changes to the browser or web content Includes features or functionality not related to the add-on’s core function(s) Then the “unexpected” feature(s) must adhere to all of the following requirements: The add-on description must clearly state what changes the add-on makes. All changes must be “opt-in”, meaning the user has to take non-default action to enact the change. Changes that prompt the user via the permissions system don’t require an additional opt-in. The opt-in interface must clearly state the name of the add-on requesting the change.
Capybara and Webrat use some of the same method names which leads to runtime collisions that reveal themselves in confusing ways.
To be just a bit polemic, your first instinct was not to do that. And you probably wouldn't think of that in your unit tests either (the holy grail of dynamic langs). So someday it would blow up at runtime, and THEN you'd add that safeguard.
As many would guess: ... catch StandardError => e raise $! ... raises the same error referenced by $!, the same as simply calling: ... catch StandardError => e raise ... but probably not for the reasons one might think. In this case, the call to raise is NOT just raising the object in $!...it raises the result of $!.exception(nil), which in this case happens to be $!.
Legitimate Interest may be used for marketing purposes as long as it has a minimal impact on a data subject’s privacy and it is likely the data subject will not object to the processing or be surprised by it.
The .ignore file , from what I can tell, needs to exist in the directory you're targeting for it to be recognized, not the current directory. If you're searching in .src, the file would need to be there for it to work.
"sing aloud," and perhaps because shc diclnot, she crossed the sound barrier long before other women learrrt.rlto fly. Writing for pleasure, she wrote what she pleased
I like how this passage suggests that because Dickinson kept her work private, she was able to progress further than her female contemporaries who, as I read it, were shackled by sociatal expectations of what art is, or how a woman should be writing and therfore could not contend with Dickinson's unfettered imagination--the results of which were largely unrecognized until after her death.
trauma
I love how "disapointment in love" is described as traumatic--it's also interesting how trauma sometimes engenders art--and how lonlieness, heartbreak, and dissatisfaction inspire many to create and can be labled as "traumatic" events or feelings.
WOMEN
I'm amazed at how many words are on this page!