one of the things i suggested in a short history of progress is that 00:30:18 one of our problems even though we're very clever as a species we're not wise

It does not make sense for   one species to command most of the energy flow  through the ecosystems of which it is a part.   That's a very destabilizing situation. And  the wise species would do everything possible   to reestablish some kind of balanced energy and  material throughput. If we don't do that, again,   01:15:52 I keep harping on this, people hate me for it,  but we will go down

If the answer to this is "no" with some set of reasons, that's a perfectly reasonable outcome.

PRs will introduce various mechanisms step by step. Some of these have issues already. A possible breakdown could be: Annotation collection using instance values (links also does this) Defining annotations to which multiple keywords contribute (this is new, see Need more details of annotation collection #530) Defining subschema and keyword processing results to include annotations Processing sequence for keywords that dynamically rely on the results of static keywords The actual definition of unevaluatedProperties An example of unevaluatedProperties

The problem domain and the data involved in this project was complicated enough. We decided that not having to worry about unknowns with the frontend end-to-end testing stack helped mitigate risk. This isn’t to say you should always going with the tool you know, but in this instance we felt it was the right choice.

But I believe the core philosophy of tiny modules is actually sound and easier to maintain than giant frameworks.

Write modules that are small. Iterate quickly.

While Trailblazer offers you abstraction layers for all aspects of Ruby On Rails, it does not missionize you. Wherever you want, you may fall back to the "Rails Way" with fat models, monolithic controllers, global helpers, etc. This is not a bad thing, but allows you to step-wise introduce Trailblazer's encapsulation in your app without having to rewrite it.

Personality makes each of us different. Our style of behavior, how we react, our worldview, thoughts, feelings, and how we interact in relationships are all part of what makes up our personality.

For when the philosophers would form their wise man, who is to be perfect in every respect, and, as they say, a kind of mortal god, they not only believe that he should be instructed in a general knowledge of divine and human things, but conduct him through a course of questions which are certainly little, if you consider them merely in themselves (as, sometimes, through studied subtleties of argument) not because questions about horns or crocodiles can form a wise man, but because a wise man ought never to be in error even in the least matters.