On the downside, DisCOs are also more complex in the initial stages, although once their learning curve has been overcome, we'd argue that they function more smoothly and are more resilient organizations.

first, as a description of a legal entity that holds the ability to maintain tangible functions like contracts and agreements, and more intangible ones like commonly held values. Secondly, “trust” is used in the sense of the ability for team members to operate with a specific relationship to one another, according to defined principles and common goals.

Ruthlessly seek negative feedback. When getting feedback, @tferriss requests the reader highlight: • Anywhere boring • Anything confusing • Anywhere your mind starts to wander Then he asks two questions - what is the: • 10% I must keep • 20% I should cut immediately

Recent studies found when teachers gave trainee pharmacists frequent low-stakes questions with feedback, students performed better on tests and were more satisfied with the course.  

There are two ways for someone to be in this quadrant. The unhealthy way, as a people pleaser, with associated resentment and chaos. In a healthy way, everything feels very clear. It’s easy to fit feedback into their mental model, and adjustments feel natural and build on what they are currently working on. This comes from having a good idea themselves about what is happening and how they think they can improve.

Coachability is made up of two factors: someone’s receptiveness to feedback, and how highly actionable they are (what they do with it).

How do your reports respond to feedback? As managers, it’s our job to grow the people we work with. This is how we build a bench, and scale ourselves and the organization. Of course, this is easy to say and hard to do, and we’ve all encountered a spectrum of people: those with whom it’s easy to accelerate and have a real and lasting impact on, and those where the lasting impact is the relief we feel once we no longer work with them.

Optimism is an occupational hazard of programming: feedback is the treament.

We just cannot know all that life will throw at us, and if we want our grading contract to be fair and equitable for everyone, we need to reexamine it, reflect on how it has been working for each of us, and perhaps adjust it. 

your goal cannot be to follow orders in order to get a higher grade, instead you are free to listen, consider things, ignore ideas, or ask more honest questions of your readers. You are now free to make your own decisions on your writing. 

Why does test suite performance matter? First of all, testing is a part of a developer's feedback loop (see @searls talk) and, secondly, it is a part of a deployment cycle.

Ask questions about the proposal, how the syntax works, what the semantics mean, etc.

This article is half-done without your Comment! *** Please share your thoughts via Comment ***

No it doesn't. I've simply told SvelteKit to ignore the type error from credentials missing. If there's some other issue or missing feature it's not blocked by this. That being said, I wouldn't mind getting this change in

This idea that plants become desirable or aversive depending on their digestive consequences is simple. But, how do grazing animals figure out exactly which plants made them fee l good or ill? One way herbivores apparently accomplish this task is by regarding unfamiliar plants with caution. Animals associate positive or negative effects of nutrients or toxins with novel foods when offered meals that contain novel and familiar foods. When foraging bouts include several novel plants, plants that dominate the diet are probably 'weighted' more than less-consumed plants, even if the minor foods were primarily responsible for the positive or negative feedback. Furthermore, digestive feedback begins within 10 to 15 minutes of consumption which could help animals attribute digestive benefits or liabilities to specific plants. Finally, livestock grazing on rangelands usually become familiar with the forage resource and may seldom encounter truly novel plants. This allows greater opportunity to 'sort out' feedback from individual or similar groups of plants

When a grazing animal smells and tastes a plant, the flavor is either pleasing or distasteful depending on the animal's previous grazing experiences. When a plant is eaten, it provides feedback during digestion. If consumption of a plant improves the nutrient or energy status of the animal, the plant flavor becomes more desirable or pleasing. If eating of the plant yields illness, the flavor becomes aversive and distasteful (Fig. 2). These flavor-consequence relationships form the basis for dietary likes and dislikes, and the animal then seeks highly palatable foods and avoids aversive foods. The resulting behavior patterns generally lead to increased consump- tion of nutritious foods and limited consumption of toxic or low quality plants.

The digestive consequences of forage consumption are determined by plant forage quality and animal digestive and detoxification abilities. This interaction, in turn, affects the nutrients and energy available for animal growth and maintenance.

When an animal eats a plant, it receives digestive feedback in the form of energy, nutrients, illness, or toxicosis. If the feedback is positive, preferences are formed to the plant and if the feedback is negative, aversions are formed. The strength of the preference or aversion is determined by the magnitude, nature, and timing of digestive feedback

Please do not directly email any Sidekiq committers with questions or problems. A community is best served when discussions are held in public.

To improve the usability of text fields and to determine which text field variables to alter, our researchers and designers conducted two studies between November 2016 and February 2017, with actual users.

You might not always notice, but Material Design is constantly evolving and iterating based on research.

Use the button to get a sharable link to the page with annotations.

Feedback

I don't even know how to tell if they're working 100%, I'm getting mixed signals ..

Should it only contain link* calls?

When should I use link, vs dir, vs. tree?

but I still have no idea if I'm writing this new file correctly.

Positively indicate valid input values Let users know a field has been entered correctly. The browser can give us this information through the :valid CSS selector:

See this post's corresponding GitHub Issue for related media, aggregated links, and other minutia.

Here's the last issue where source maps were discussed before the beta release.

Any idea @AaronLasseigne if this is mergeable?

and let us know how you are putting Hypothesis Help to good use

It is important to acknowledge that education is essentially a political activity.

Unfollow, στο τεύχος 14

Apparently this will be fixed in Firefox 69.

While this tutorial has content that we believe is of great benefit to our community, we have not yet tested or edited it to ensure you have an error-free learning experience. It's on our list, and we're working on it! You can help us out by using the "report an issue" button at the bottom of the tutorial.

Can this be merged please, this fixes a problem I have

please feel free to open an issue here on GitHub with questions/comments/improvements/etc

Discuss this post on the web:

These are valid comments. I think it is worth noting that svelte didn’t choose a non-javascript method for fun or because we think we should redesign the language. The additional constructs, for the most part, are there to allow svelte to more clearly work out exactly what is going on in the code in order to optimise. In short svelte needs a certain amount of information to do what it does and pure javascript is often difficult to analyse in this way. But I appreciate your concerns and comments and we try to take all feedback on board where we can. So thank you!

The exact form of the platform is yet to be finalized, and we want to involve you, the community, in helping to provide ideas and test the new contribution workflow!

Better community building: At the moment, MDN content edits are published instantly, and then reverted if they are not suitable. This is really bad for community relations. With a PR model, we can review edits and provide feedback, actually having conversations with contributors, building relationships with them, and helping them learn.

indipendently

I open this issue to announce that i'm actively working on a rewrite of this library to accomplish these goals:

It is hard to appreciate how important really fast (and reliable) hot reload can be during development, unless you have experienced it yourself. Developers report that it changes the way they create their apps, describing it as being like painting their app to life.

In fact, it’s at the core of the learning process and how the human brain learns.

In everyday life, feedback loops for each of us occur naturally–usually in the form, ‘When I do X, Y happens.’ That’s a kind of feedback loop in the learning process.

A feedback loop in learning is a cause-effect sequence where data (often in the form of an ‘event’) is responded to based on recognition of an outcome and that data is used to inform future decisions in similar or analogous situations.

What vaults this well past SNCF for me (setup time aside), is the limited company choice; it prevents a feedback loop of sorts where a game devolves into running each company in the ground.

Second, you have more frequent opportunities to get feedback. Instead of spending weeks hammering away in isolation, only to discover that you made some mistaken assumptions, you can get feedback at each intermediate stage. You become more adaptable and more accountable, because you are performing your work in public.

If you have further thoughts here, please participate in the discussion on the issue tracker: #256.

In Rust, we use the "No New Rationale" rule, which says that the decision to merge (or not merge) an RFC is based only on rationale that was presented and debated in public. This avoids accidents where the community feels blindsided by a decision.

I'd like to go with an RFC-based governance model (similar to Rust, Ember or Swift) that looks something like this: new features go through a public RFC that describes the motivation for the change, a detailed implementation description, a description on how to document or teach the change (for kpm, that would roughly be focused around how it affected the usual workflows), any drawbacks or alternatives, and any open questions that should be addressed before merging. the change is discussed until all of the relevant arguments have been debated and the arguments are starting to become repetitive (they "reach a steady state") the RFC goes into "final comment period", allowing people who weren't paying close attention to every proposal to have a chance to weigh in with new arguments. assuming no new arguments are presented, the RFC is merged by consensus of the core team and the feature is implemented. All changes, regardless of their source, go through this process, giving active community members who aren't on the core team an opportunity to participate directly in the future direction of the project. (both because of proposals they submit and ones from the core team that they contribute to)

Please don’t be shy to submit your project if you’re just starting out!

I am new to the ecosystem and really looking forward to feedback

The authors noted that instructive or process feedback types were rarely observed in the instructors’ messages to students.

When giving negative feedback, teachers can use the positive sandwich approach—starting and ending with a positive comment

But maybe this PR should still be merged until he finds time for that?

Sorry this sat for so long!

There is this black hole syndrome where you spend hours working on something and get no feedback.

It's really useful if your PR references an issue where it is discussed ahead of time. In many cases, features are absent for a reason. For large changes, please create an RFC: https://github.com/sveltejs/rfcs

I like bundlers. Correction, I like fast bundlers. Bundlers that help me tighten the feedback loop and help me focus on the code. Not bundlers that make me doze off, waiting for the recompilation to finish, while my CPU fan sounds like an old hair dryer.

The present study demonstrated that there are differences between the quantity and quality of handwritten and electronic feedback

Course and Students

FWIW, I would have raised it earlier if I thought it would have made a difference.

This means that while groups can generate high levels of solidarity, which can in principle be put to powerful political effect, it also becomes harder to express disagreement within the group. If, for example, an outspoken and popular member of a neighbourhood WhatsApp group begins to circulate misinformation about health risks, the general urge to maintain solidarity means that their messages are likely to be met with approval and thanks. When a claim or piece of content shows up in a group, there may be many members who view it as dubious; the question is whether they have the confidence to say as much. Meanwhile, the less sceptical can simply forward it on. It’s not hard, then, to understand why WhatsApp is a powerful distributor of “fake news” and conspiracy theories.

I honestly don't know what you find unclear about this question. I think you initially misread. I edited out your title change because it wasn't what I'd intended and it misled others. I edited in two more sections to clarify. The last section makes it as clear as I can: A single question provokes 1 of 3 responses (not necessarily answers). To chose between them I need to understand acceptable scope of both question and answers. Yes this topic is a muddy one, that's why I'm asking! I want others to help me clarify the unclear!

Your comments are welcome.

But even that “minute” affects my feedback loop (see Justin Searls talk) and wastes my time.

Just as journalists should be able to write about anything they want, comedians should be able to do the same and tell jokes about anything they please

Note that we are not making the common argument that making new tools can lead to new subject matter insights for the toolmaker, and vice versa. This is correct, but is much weaker than what we are saying. Rather: making new tools can lead to new subject matter insights for humanity as a whole (i.e., significant original research insights), and vice versa, and this would ideally be a rapidly-turning loop to develop the most transformative tools.

Most people think you build the product then you market it. Thinking in loops means you build the marketing into the product. The product doesn't precede the marketing. The product is the marketing.

Future keyword improvements are being discussed in our epic for improving rules, where anyone can add suggestions or requests.

Edit this page Request docs changes

Help & feedback Docs Edit this page to fix an error or add an improvement in a merge request Create an issue to suggest an improvement to this doc Show and post comments to review and give feedback on this doc

One huge advantage to scaling up is that you’ll get far more feedback for your Insight through making process. It’s true that Effective system design requires insights drawn from serious contexts of use, but it’s possible to create small-scale serious contexts of use which will allow you to answer many core questions about your system.

Ericsson claims (2016, p. 98) that there is no deliberate practice possible for knowledge work because there are no objective criteria (so, poor feedback), because the skills aren’t clearly defined, and because techniques for focused skill improvement in these domains aren’t known.

There are many other factors that also aren't obvious so as much as suggestions for improvements are very welcomed, please keep in mind that they may not work in the broader sense of what's required to run this project.

I'll get a gazillion suggestions of how I could do this differently. Every single time I talk about the mechanics of how I've built something I always do

Don't be discouraged when you get feedback about a method that isn't all sunshine and roses. Facets has been around long enough now that it needs to maintain a certain degree of quality control, and that means serious discernment about what goes into the library. That includes having in depth discussions the merits of methods, even about the best name for a method --even if the functionality has been accepted the name may not.

Thisprovidesthestudentwithanexperienceakintosittingnexttotheinstructorinhisorherofficewhilegoingthroughtheassignment

Anumberofstudieshavedemonstratedthebenefitsofvoicefeedbackforstudents.Butfacultyneednotstopthere.Theproliferationofinexpensivescreencastingsoftwaremakesiteasyforfacultytodeliverscreencastedfeedbacktostudents

I especially welcome, and enjoy, intelligent disagreement.