Whatever is at the center of our life will be the source of our security, guidance, wisdom,and power. Security represents your sense of worth, your identity, your emotionalanchorage, your self-esteem, your basic personal strength or lack of it.Guidance means your source of direction in life. Encompassed by your map, yourinternal frame of reference that interprets for you what is happening out there, arestandards or principles or implicit criteria that govern moment-by-moment decision-making and doing.Wisdom is your perspective on life, your sense of balance, your understanding of howthe various parts and principles apply and relate to each other. It embraces judgment,discernment, comprehension. It is a gestalt or oneness, an integrated wholeness.Power is the faculty or capacity to act, the strength and potency to accomplish something.It is the vital energy to make choices and decisions. It also includes the capacity toovercome deeply embedded habits and to cultivate higher, more effective ones.

Manypeople who give mechanically or refuse to give and share in their marriages and familiesmay never have experienced what it means to possess themselves, their own sense ofidentity and self-worth

Among 11,300 roles at large firms, companies increased the share of workers without a bachelor’s degree by about 3.5 percentage points. At the same time, this shift only applied to the 3.6% of roles that dropped a requirement during that time period, which means the net effect is a change of .14 percentage points in incremental hiring of candidates without degrees.

people who are wealthy contribute the most to causing climate change, they are unfortunately also in the most ideal position to help us mitigate climate change.

They also highlighted that high emitters live in all countries, but were concentrated in the USA (3.16 million), causing an average 318 t CO2-e per person, Luxemburg (10,000 individuals emitting 287 t CO2-e/year each), Singapore (50,000, 251 t CO2-e/year), Saudi Arabia (290,000, 247 t CO2-e/year), and Canada (350,000, 204 t CO2-e/year)

Premium MOC tax support. Yaay, taxes. I think this one takes the award for most effort required to implement a feature that no-one really wants.

If you aren’t visibly producing, you aren’t worthy. In this context, taking time to lie dormant feels greedy, even wasteful.

Such relational practices of recognition avow that concern and respect are due to others as persons of inherent, not simply instrumental, worth.

It really only takes one head scratching issue to suck up all the time it saves you over a year, and in my experience these head scratchers happen much more often than once a year. So in that sense it's not worth it, and the first time I run into an issue with it, I disable it completely.

gesture isimpressionistic and holistic, conveying an immediate sense of how things lookand feel and move.

2021 has heralded the dawn of a new form of hyper-carbon-intensive luxury travel, space tourism, in which hundreds of tonnes of carbon can be burned in just a ten-minute flight for around four passengers.28

Gösling and Humpe found that no more than 1% of the world population likely accounts for half of aviation emissions.30

Earlier studies also established the major contribution to carbon footprints of the rich and famous from flights, especially via private jets. Gösling’s study constructed aviation emissions estimates based on tracking the international travel of celebrities via their social media postings. Footprints – from aviation alone – were found to be in excess of a thousand tonnes per year.27

The fact that these countries are still not on track to reach the 1.5⁰C per capita level by 2030, and have still not delivered the minimal commitment to mobilize $100bn per year in international climate finance by 2020, is a double indictment of their moral and legal failure in view of the equity principle at the heart of the UNFCCC and its Paris Agreement.

The extreme difference between the expected carbon footprints of a small minority of the world’s population in 2030 and the global average level needed to keep the Paris Agreement’s 1.5⁰C goal alive is not tenable. Maintaining such high carbon footprints among the world’s richest people either requires far deeper emissions cuts by the rest of the world’s population, or it entails global heating in excess of 1.5⁰C above pre-industrial levels. There is no other alternative.

Webpacker used to configure Webpack indirectly, which lead to a complicated secondary configuration process. This was done in order to provide default configurations for the most popular frameworks, but ended up creating more complexity than it cured. So now Webpacker delegates all configuration directly to Webpack's default configuration setup.

On existing projects, consider the global effort to change from origin/master to origin/main. The cost of being different than git convention and every book, tutorial, and blog post. Is the cost of change and being different worth it?

Note: Instead of storing a user’s ID in the session cookie you could store a JWT, but I’m not sure what that buys you. However, you may be using specific JWT claims that make this worthwhile.

Test we react correctly to any events emitted from child components:

Test any directive that defines if/how child component is rendered (for example, v-if and v-for).

When mocking is deemed profitable:

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

Very often in these monorepos, packages are so incredibly specific in functionality, the question then becomes why even have a separate package at all if it’s tightly coupled? Can you use these packages independently or are they tied to specific versions of other packages in the monorepo? It’ll probably be easier to remove the mask and just work as a monolith.

So the question becomes how many tests are enough?

I am a big advocate of having a complete test base and even erring on the side of caution when it comes to quality engineering and software validation but that is not what we’re talking about here. What we’re talking about here are the tests that we write when we’re doing test-first development and I’m proposing that writing those tests from the perspective of specifying the behaviors that we want to create is a highly valuable way of writing tests because it drives us to think at the right level of abstraction for creating behavioral tests and that allow us the freedom to refactor our code without breaking it.

There used to be other backends in addition to C: Java, CSharp, and Javascript but those suffered from bitrot and have been removed.

much software requires continuous changes to meet new requirements and correct bugs, and re-engineering software each time a change is made is rarely practical.

If a company really wanted to invest, I would prefer they dedicated an employee for X hours a week for Y months than money.

Money could be good if it is spent to provide some of the above things. Money on it's own is hard because then it means I would have to spend time book-keeping and managing instead of programming.

Personally, I'm starting to think that the feature where it automatically adds xray.js to the document is more trouble than it's worth. I propose that we remove that automatic feature and just make it part of the install instructions that you need to add this line to your template/layout: <%= javascript_include_tag 'xray', nonce: true if Rails.env.development? %>

Now that I've thought more about it, I honestly think the auto-adding the script feature is overrated, over-complicated, and error-prone (#98, #100), and I propose we just remove it (#110).

now that I've thought more about it, I think the auto-adding the script feature is overrated, over-complicated, and error-prone (#100), and ought to just be removed (#110).

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

Technically, it isn’t a part of the comparison internally but it is a factor that some users care for.

And if there's a suitable vulnerability, it might be possible to trigger it even without using <iframe>, <img> or <a> element, so it's not worth considering for this issue.

What’s the use of ie. snap libreoffice if it can’t access documents on a samba server in my workplace ? Should I really re-organize years of storage and work in my office for being able to use snap ? A too high price to pay, for the moment.

If the client JS is disabled, then handleSubmit will never be executed and you have to care that your /api/fakeBackendRoute will handle the data exactly how the client would.

Doing a HOC properly, as a library should, with hoisted statics and displayName and ref, etc., is a hassle and would add unnecessary bulk.

Of all the compile-to-languages, the one that strikes me as having the least merit is JSX. It's basically a ton of added complexity for the sake of what boils down to syntax. There are no real gains in terms of language semantics in JSX.

I'm suggesting this is a problem generally. Users will not think of being out of sync with props

Three tests to prove a small piece of behavior. Although it might seem overkill for such a small feature, these tests are quick to write—that is, once you know how to write them

This has the merit of simplicity and obviousness, but it's not particularly ergonomic: it signals that we don't consider component themeability to be a problem worth solving properly.

These seem to be better reasons to support sub-nanosecond resolution. I think either storing picoseconds or storing sec fraction as 64-bit integer are better approaches than storing a rational. However, either change would be very invasive, and it seems unlikely to be worth the effort.

We mostly write integration tests, by the way—and 20% is not that bad (but can be even better).

This policy allows the test suite to stay green while letting individual teams decide when they would like to put in the effort to write more deterministic tests. They may choose to do so right away, or delay until they work on the feature again.

We are not testing styles specifically at this time

Integration specs are relied upon to ensure the application functions, but does not ensure pixel-level stylistic perfection.

Other sites could absolutely spend time crawling for new lists of breached passwords and then hashing and comparing against their own. However this is an intensive process and I'm sure both Facebook and Google have a team dedicated to account security with functions like this.

Before embarking on the effort to scrape the web for new password breaches and compare against your entire user database you also need to consider the ROI. The beauty of the pwned passwords API and this, and other, implementations of it is that you can get a good improvement in your account security with comparatively little engineering effort.

“Even if experts are saying it’s really not going to make a difference, a little [part of] people’s brains is thinking, well, it’s not going to hurt. Maybe it’ll cut my risk just a little bit, so it’s worth it to wear a mask,” she says.

But, let’s be pragmatic for a second, the 80/20 rule states that you get 80% of the value from 20% of the work and a couple of simple tests are vastly better than no tests at all. Start small and simple, make sure you get something out of the testing first, then expand the test suite and add more complexity until you feel that you’ve reached the point where more effort spent on realism will not give enough return on your invested time.

I should also add that I'm in favor of relying more heavily on integration testing. When you do this, you need to unit test fewer of your simple components and wind up only having to unit test edge cases for components (which can mock all they want).

Often, if you are writing a test that amounts to “it does what it does”, or “it does exactly this, which happens to be duplicated in the application code”, then the test is either unnecessary or too broad.

Here are three rules of thumb I use to determine that something is not worth testing:Will the test have to duplicate exactly the application code? This will make it brittle.Will making assertions in the test duplicate any behavior that is already covered by (and the responsibility of) library code?From an outsider’s perspective, is this detail important, or is it only an internal concern? Can the effect of this internal detail be described using only the component’s public API?

Dissecting Flavivirus Biology in Salivary Gland Cultures from Fed and Unfed Ixodes scapularis (Black-Legged Tick)

You want your reward to give you greater awareness, greater affinity with life and a greater sense of your value and purpose in the world--not the value and purpose that you invent for your own delights, but the value and purpose that are intrinsic to your being here. This value cannot be exhausted. It will not leave you and will only grow as greater attention, time and energy are devoted to its expression and experience.

When you come to terms with your past, and realize that you’ve had accomplishments both then and now, you’ll also develop this sense of self-worth.

[%renderedtext%]gt;

and those in which no worthless man can succeed, for such things bring greater praise:

It is clear, then, that rhetoric is not bound up with a single definite class of subjects, but is as universal as dialectic; it is clear, also, that it is useful. It is clear, further, that its function is not simply to succeed in persuading, but rather to discover the means of coming as near such success as the circumstances of each particular case allow. In this it resembles all other arts. For example, it is not the function of medicine simply to make a man quite healthy, but to put him as far as may be on the road to health; it is possible to give excellent treatment even to those who can never enjoy sound health.