For mobile phones, technologies like SMS, MMS and data access were historically usually considered value-added services, but in recent years SMS, MMS and data access have more and more become core services, and VAS therefore has begun to exclude those services.

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.

It’s so simple that I sometimes wonder why it took years to develop it!

Before the pandemic, I normally called chefs after I’d written a review of their restaurant but before it was published, to check facts. The chefs usually sounded as if I were calling with the results of a lab test. One chef called me back from a hospital and told me his wife was in the next room giving birth to their first child, but — oh no, don’t worry, it’s fine, he said; in fact, I’d picked a perfect time to call! These were, in other words, awkward conversations.The ones I had last spring were different. It was as if the fear and distrust all chefs feel toward all critics were gone. They talked about going bankrupt, they talked about crying and not wanting to get out of bed. What did they have left to lose by talking to me?

This is a breaking change so it'll have to go into a major release. I was working on a v4 release but it's too much. I think I'm going to pair it back and we can add this to the new v4. When I have that ready, I'll rebase the merge onto that branch.

We are still open to the idea but the implementation should leverage the attributes API introduced in Rails 5.2 in Active Model.

Say you have software to keep track of your grocery list. In the 80's, this software would work against a command line and some flat files on floppy disk. Then you got a UI. Then you maybe put the list in the database. Later on it maybe moved to the cloud or mobile phones or facebook integration. If you designed your code specifically around the implementation (floppy disks and command lines) you would be ill-prepared for changes. If you designed your code around the interface (manipulating a grocery list) then the implementation is free to change.

Rather than implement features you might need, you implement only the features you definitely need, but in a way that accommodates change. If you don't have this flexibility, parallel development simply isn't possible.

At the core of parallel development, however, is the notion of flexibility. You have to write your code in such a way that you can incorporate newly discovered requirements into the existing code as painlessly as possible.

Let's assume that something in the system has to change (as it rarely does..), and we need to add a new step to the process to the runner

It is only through broad public conversations and beginning to see the consequences of some of the approaches I was taking that I have come to fully appreciate the severe limits of technocracy. In that case, as in all those above, there is a severe danger of great technical minds being wasted on an arrogant pursuit of remaking the world in their image, rather than contributing to a broader conversation.

If we renamed things more often, then it probably wouldn’t be so hard to name them in the first place.

With just one tug of a string — just one cancellation or postponement of a festival that might take up to a full year to prepare for — it can all fall apart.

Canonical would do well to make sure they dont complicate things for whatever the next big Linux shift is.

People thrive in a wide range of climates. The projected climate change is small relative to the diurnal cycle. It is therefore rather peculiar to conclude that climate change will be disastrous. Those who claim so have been unable to explain why. https://twitter.com/RichardTol/status/1313182006310731776?s=20

(c) In addition to the procedure set forth above in subsections (a) and (b) of this section, the charter may be revised or amended by the submission of a citizen initiative (petition) signed by 10 percent of the voters. The petition and subsequent action shall conform to the requirements of State statutes relating to charter amendment procedures, shall be subject to the determination of the Board of Selectmen as to whether or not they are comprehensive in nature, and shall be approved by a Town meeting vote with at least 25 percent of voters participating.

§ 2645. Charters; adoption, repeal, or amendment; procedure (a) A municipality may propose to the General Assembly to adopt, repeal, or amend its charter by majority vote of the legal voters of the municipality present and voting at any annual or special meeting warned for that purpose in accordance with the following procedure: (1) A proposal to adopt, repeal, or amend a municipal charter (charter proposal) may be made by the legislative body of the municipality or by petition of five percent of the voters of the municipality. (2) An official copy of the charter proposal shall be filed as a public record in the office of the clerk of the municipality at least 10 days before the first public hearing. The clerk shall certify the date on which he or she received the official copy, and the dated copies thereof shall be made available to members of the public upon request. (3)(A) The legislative body of the municipality shall hold at least two public hearings prior to the meeting to vote on the charter proposal. (B) The first public hearing shall be held in accordance with subdivision (a)(2) of this section and at least 30 days before the vote. (4)(A) If the charter proposal is made by the legislative body, the legislative body may revise the proposal as a result of suggestions and recommendations made at a public hearing, but in no event shall such revisions be made less than 20 days before the date of the meeting to vote on the charter proposal. (B) If revisions are made, the legislative body shall post a notice of these revisions in the same places as the warning for the meeting not less than 20 days before the date of the meeting and shall attach such revisions to the official copy kept on file for public inspection in the office of the clerk of the municipality. (5)(A) If the charter proposal is made by petition, the second public hearing shall be held no later than 10 days after the first public hearing. The legislative body shall not have the authority to revise a charter proposal made by petition. (B) After the warning and hearing requirements of this section are satisfied, the petitioned charter proposal shall be submitted to the voters at the next annual meeting, primary, or general election in the form in which it was filed, except that the legislative body may make technical corrections. (6)(A) Notice of each public hearing and of the annual or special meeting shall be given in accordance with section 2641 of this chapter. (B)(i) Each notice shall specify the charter sections to be adopted, repealed, or amended, setting out those sections in the amended form, with deleted matter struck through and new matter underlined. (ii) If the legislative body of the municipality determines that the charter proposal is too long or unwieldy to set out in amended form, the notice shall include a concise summary of the charter proposal and shall state that an official copy of the charter proposal is on file for public inspection in the office of the clerk of the municipality and that copies thereof shall be made available to members of the public upon request. (7)(A) Voting on a charter proposal shall be by Australian ballot. (B)(i) The ballot shall show each charter section to be adopted, repealed, or amended in the amended form, with deleted matter struck through and new matter underlined, and shall permit the voter to vote on each separate proposal contained within the charter proposal. (ii) If the legislative body determines that the charter proposal is too long or unwieldy to be shown in the amended form, voters shall be permitted to vote upon each separate proposal in its entirety in the form of a yes or no proposition. (C) An official copy of the charter proposal shall be posted conspicuously in each ballot booth for inspection by the voters during the balloting. (b)(1) The clerk of the municipality, under the direction of the legislative body, shall announce and post the results of the vote immediately after the vote is counted. (2) The clerk, within 10 days after the day of the meeting, shall certify to the Secretary of State each separate proposal contained within the charter proposal, showing the facts as to its origin and the procedure followed, which shall include: (A)(i) If the charter proposal was made by the legislative body, the minutes recorded by the legislative body that detail the origins and intent of each separate proposal; (ii) If the charter proposal was made by voter petition, the body of the petition and evidence of the required number of petition signatures; (B) A copy of the official certified copy of the charter proposal filed with the clerk of the municipality pursuant to subdivision (a)(2) of this section; (C) Copies of the warnings and published notices for each of the public hearings held pursuant to subdivision (a)(3) of this section; (D) Minutes recorded by the legislative body that detail each of the public hearings held pursuant to subdivision (a)(3) of this section; (E) Copies of warnings and published notices for the meeting to vote on the charter proposal; and (F) A copy of the ballot and the results of the vote or votes on the charter proposal. (c) After confirming that the clerk of the municipality has certified each of the documents listed in subdivision (b)(2) of this section, the Secretary of State shall file the certificate and deliver copies of it to the Attorney General, the Clerk of the House, the Secretary of the Senate, and the chairs of the committees concerned with municipal charters of both houses of the General Assembly. (d) The charter proposal shall become effective upon affirmative enactment of the proposal, either as proposed or as amended by the General Assembly. (Added 1977, No. 269 (Adj. Sess.), § 1; amended 1979, No. 200 (Adj. Sess.), § 100; 1981, No. 239 (Adj. Sess.), § 22, eff. May 4, 1982; 1983, No. 161 (Adj. Sess.); 1987, No. 63; 2017, No. M-7, § 2A, eff. May 22, 2017.)

If you manage to make Svelte aware of what needs to be tracked, chances are that the resulting code will be more performant than if you roll your own with events or whatever. In part because it will use Svelte's runtime code that is already present in your app, in part because Svelte produces seriously optimized change tracking code, that would be hard to hand code all while keeping it human friendly. And in part because your change tracking targets will be more narrow.

The science of the "Science is settled" crowd isn't an open system of skeptical inquiry, but a closed system of centralized authority funded and controlled by special interests, beholden to political agendas and intolerant of dissent. It has the same relationship to science that the various People's Democracies had to democracy.

"Organizational change management ensures that the new processes resulting from a project are actually adopted by the people who are affected.”

Nonethel ess, scholars have begun to iden-tify procedures that can potentially mitigate political sectarianism. These in clude efforts to help Americans comprehend opposing partisans regardless of their level of agree-ment, such as by focusing on commonalities rather than differences (e.g., “we’re all Amer-icans”; SM) or communicating in the moral language of the other side (e.g., when liberals frame the consequences of climate change in terms of sanctity violations; SM).

It seems to also highlight how much our governments, banks and big corporations roles play into the state of our planet, how much we need them to change so that our individual choices can actually make a significant difference. Read more

No more waiting around for pull requests to be merged and published. No more forking repos just to fix that one tiny thing preventing your app from working.

Got a bit sidetracked into refactoring the Element visitor code, so haven't actually started on the event handler stuff per se, but that'll come soon. Element stuff is starting to feel a bit more logical and easier to follow.

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.

“Although we now have at our disposal some fairly sophisticated methods of characterizing uncertainty,” she warned, “these do not actually enable us to control or even predict the extent of the disaster.

This act of proactive self-talk is the single-most crucial step for learners as bloggers to cross in order to change from extrinsically motivated bloggers to intrinsically motivated ones’ (Groulx, 2009).

You can also see this repo: default-passive-events.

It is important to notice that if you are planning on making your application a PWA, you don’t have to rewrite all the logic.

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)

So I propose having the repo in place, and using it for targeted proposals where we really want feedback from early users, and hold off formalising anything more until early next year, as you said.

Svelte's advantage here is that it indicates the need for an update at the place where the associated data is updated, instead of at each place the data is used. Then each template expression of reactive statement is able to check very quickly if it needs to rerender or not.

But you can still run into strange race conditions where the browser displays stale data depending on if some other unrelated code has caused a digest update to run after the buggy code or not.

The advantage of ngOnChanges() is that we get all the changes at once if the component has several @Input()s. However, if we have a single @Input() a setter is probably the better approach.

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.

We already are reserving a prop called slot so that we can do <Foo slot='bar'/> someday

but that might break everything for folks who actually do want to set values to undefined inside component code, so that might not be viable.

The RFC repo (where the reaction was strongly positive) is the place for discussion about what features to add; the decision has been made.

A Comparative Study of Two Organisational Change Models

in the new way

Adobe’s shift to monthly subscriptions rather than an upfront payment has left many users out in the cold,

Whenever you want to change your behavior, you can simply ask yourself: How can I make it obvious? How can I make it attractive? How can I make it easy? How can I make it satisfying?

This would be a breaking change, but we could always clone in the call in a minor and then make the breaking change later in a major.

You have no choice. You can shop at a store that pays its workers better, sure, but the real atrocities have taken place long before your desired products have reached the shelf, and the stickers have nothing to do with it. “And here grocery has one last trick,” Lorr writes: “it allows us to hate our shrimp and eat it too. The image of the bad polluting aquaculture farmer or vulnerable exploited migrant gets imprinted in our first-world brain, while the fungibility of commodity goods—that maze of brokers and agents—gives the entire system the plausible deniability it craves.”

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

remove: this is today’s behavior of dropping these imports. It’s going to continue to be the default, and is a non-breaking change.