In this pivotal year for climate action, much will depend on the updated 2030 emissions-reduction target that the US sets for itself. To meet the challenge at hand, the new target will need to be even more ambitious than the 50% reduction in greenhouse-gas emissions (from 2005 levels) that is currently being floated in Washington.

Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and foster such a tension that a community which has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue.

ntra-action with the world rather than in the head of the autonomous subject, and as a sensuous and sensory practice in which mind and body are indistinguishable.

It's more powerful to have them happen in definition order, because this lets you intercept thing in event handlers or in actions.

Moreover, you can add as many use:action directives as you want to an element.

With a few lines of code we can add functionality to regular HTML elements, in a very reusable and declarative way.

the use directive takes care of the component lifecycle for us.

If it's behaviour that you can imagine needing to reuse among multiple components, or if it's something that you can imagine applying to an element inside an {#if ...} block (for example), then it probably belongs in an action. It it's something that 'belongs' to the component itself, rather than a specific element, then it's probably more of a lifecycle thing.

The use:action method seems cleaner, but aside from that, are there any underlying differences between these two methods that would make one preferred over the other in certain situations?

Popper for Svelte with actions, no wrapper components or component bindings required! Other Popper libraries for Svelte (including the official @popperjs/svelte library) use a wrapper component that takes the required DOM elements as props. Not only does this require multiple bind:this, you also have to pollute your script tag with multiple DOM references. We can do better with Svelte actions!

A cleaner approach could be the use:action API.

The best place to let the developers know, and track those bugs is in the bug tracker. There are hundreds of forums online, all over the place in many languages. We can’t be expected to read all of them. Anyone with a launchpad ID (thus, anyone who has an account on this discourse instance) has the capability to file a bug. I’d strongly recommend doing so, for each specific issue. Taking just a few minutes to do that will help tremendously.

When there are imperfections, we rely on users and our active community to tell us how the software is not working correctly, so we can fix it. The way we do that, and have done for 15 years now, is via bug reports. Discussion is great, but detailed bug reports are better for letting developers know what’s wrong.

For safety reasons, certain pumps and sprayers cannot be returned to the store if opened.

The best course of action is to discreetly arrange a one-to-one meeting, and sensitively explore how he’s feeling. It can be useful to write a wellness action plan together. This is a document in which the employee writes down information about the mental-health problems he’s experiencing, and what triggers exist in his workplace that contribute to these feelings. You can then draw up a strategy together for how to help him improve his mental health in the workplace, and make a list of actions that both of you can take to help get him back on track.

For use$ since svelte is never going to support actions for components, i designed something that reminds React hooks that will in some ways replace this feature.

If nobody objects or can come up with improvements, I'll approve.

You can add actions to the components with use={[Action1, [Action2, action2Props], Action3]}.

use: [] - An array of actions and/or action/property arrays.

Thanks for posting this helpful, well written article. Learning programming, or any other thing one takes up, requires you to sit at one place have a plan of action for your study.

I used a self made (for the experience) rule based sytem with the Svelte use:action element directive. FI: <input .. use:valid={prop, 'mandatory'}....>

Sometimes, you may be tempted to write that wrapper. Because all your (React or Vue or insert your reactive framework here) instincts tell you so.Resist the temptation. There is a better way. A svelter way. Introducing: the use-directive (a.k.a. “actions”).

An action used on anchor tags to navigate around the application.

The point of the feature is to not rely on the third-party author of the child component to add a prop for every action under the sun. Rather, they could just mark a recipient for actions on the component (assuming there is a viable target element), and then consumers of the library could extend the component using whatever actions they desire.

They don't need to add a prop for every action. The action itself can be passed in as a prop. <script> export let action; </script> <div use:action>whatever</div> The argument for the action can be another prop or can be part of the same prop.

Your tooltip component will have to wrap your image with a span tag or something, it can’t just add events to its children. And if you are adding multiple actions to it you will have to wrap it multiple times.

<Concern1> <Concern2> </Concern2> </Concern1>

vs.

<img use:concern1 use:concern2>

I have created an action for form validation and its really working well

If everyone did all of the above things, they would have the personal infrastructure in place to enable their lives to become zero-emissions. But the above changes only cover 45% of average American emissions—so what gives? The remaining 55% of emissions come indirectly from the goods, services, and food we buy. The only way we’ll get to a zero-carbon world is for each of those industries to adopt new technology and change their processes to be emissions-free, or be replaced with a zero-emissions alternative. That’s why your first action is voting to make sure that policies and incentives are put in place to accelerate the overall transition.

Notre rôle est de provoquer et d’accompagner la nécessaire prise de conscience

Cookie Control aims to prevent cookies from being placed on a user's computer until they have given their explicit consent via an affirmative act.

Like all other consent under the GDPR, consenting to cookies needs to be a clear affirmative action. An example is clicking through an opt-in box or choosing settings from the menu. Pay attention to not have pre-ticked boxes on the consent form!

The GDPR requires consent to be opt-in. It defines consent as “freely given, specific, informed and unambiguous” given by a “clear affirmative action.” It is not acceptable to assign consent through the data subject’s silence or by supplying “pre-ticked boxes.”

Ce fonStonnement suppose que les transports sSolaires puissent éventuellement s’adapter enfonSton des modes d’organisaton retenus

Captain Dathon

The remedy which the tradition of Western thought has proposed for the unpredictability and irreversibility of action has consisted in abstaining from action altogether, in the withdrawal from the sphere of interaction with others, in the hope that one’s freedom and integrity could thereby be preserved. Platonism, Stoicism and Christianity elevated the sphere of contemplation above the sphere of action, precisely because in the former one could be free from the entanglements and frustrations of action. Arendt’s proposal, by contrast, is not to turn one’s back on the realm of human affairs, but to rely on two faculties inherent in action itself, the faculty of forgiving and the faculty of promising. These two faculties are closely connected, the former mitigating the irreversibility of action by absolving the actor from the unintended consequences of his or her deeds, the latter moderating the uncertainty of its outcome by binding actors to certain courses of action and thereby setting some limit to the unpredictability of the future. Both faculties are, in this respect, connected to temporality: from the standpoint of the present forgiving looks backward to what has happened and absolves the actor from what was unintentionally done, while promising looks forward as it seeks to establish islands of security in an otherwise uncertain and unpredictable future.

I chose all my scholarly journals, I put them together. I chose some YouTube videos; they were –IF:        Mm-hmm.CF:        – like, a bunch of TED talks.        

And – And I seen how – I saw how many, um, scholarly journals or how many sources came up for it, right? Um, number of sources. Right. And then, if I – if I felt like it wasn’t enough for me to thoroughly talk about the topic, I would move on. Right? So, when I did segregation, there – like, I guess, like, my specific topic was modern-day, so there wasn’t really much about it. Right? So, not much info. Right? And then, when I did gentrification, there were a lot, right?

Wrong solutions can be fixed, but non-existent ones aren’t adjustable at all.

It's important that we keep our focus on action, and don't fall into the trap of analysis paralysis or sticking to a slow, quiet path without risk.

Decisions should be thoughtful, but delivering fast results requires the fearless acceptance of occasionally making mistakes; our bias for action also allows us to course correct quickly.

nstJ;'Umentofreflection

stressful but fascinating

Despite the controversy Rumisa doesn't regret making the poster. "I'm kind of happy that my poster got a lot of attention," she says.

Thisaccount refuses the representationalist fixation on “words” and “things”and the problematic of their relationality, advocating insteadacausalrelationship between specific exclusionary practices embodied as specific ma-terial configurations of the world(i.e., discursive practices/(con)figurationsrather than “words”)and specific material phenomena(i.e., relations ratherthan “things”). This causal relationship between the apparatuses of bodilyproduction and the phenomena produced is one of “agential intra-action.”The details follow

However, when asked if they would be willing to participate in action research teaming in the future, preservice teacher candidates were more positive (x̄=6.4)<math><mtext>(</mtext><mtext>x</mtext><mtext>̄</mtext><mtext>=6.4)</mtext></math> than their veteran counterparts (x̄=5.8)<math><mtext>(</mtext><mtext>x</mtext><mtext>̄</mtext><mtext>=5.8)</mtext></math>.

One way to overcome this isolation is to encourage collaboration with informed peers through established frameworks within school communities.

Mais on ne peut pas faire grand-chose si la politique est laissée à l’État : les questions écologiques ne peuvent pas reposer sur l’appareil normal de l’État. Ce dernier s’occupe toujours de ce que les militants sont parvenus à rendre visible avant ; il ne peut jamais anticiper sur les questions futures, qui est la tâche politique des chercheurs, des citoyens, des militants et que l’État peut organiser seulement après coup.

o far only as it is beneficial {l,16�(' or hurtful to the true believers.

As teachers gained familiarity and agency, they moved from perceiving ‘research’ as a domain that existed outside the classroom, to doing research and seeing where it fits with classroom practice.

In our research program overall, we have observed the success of teacher teams who follow a cyclical structure of co-planning/ co-teaching/ implementation/ debriefing with enactments (practice) in between team meetings, and so we expected to see this pattern repeat itself (and it did).

This discussion informed the development of a problem statement (a brief statement encapsulating the problem under focus in the classroom) and corresponding research question.

The most important factor was that at least some visual evidence of classroom practice and student work was shared in team meetings, which allowed team members to literally see what was happening in one another’s classrooms.

they realized that they would be supported rather than judged and that team members would help to find answers

Teachers saw each other as mutually supportive.

hese characteristics require thatemergent response groups adopt specific approaches forknowledge coordination. One such approach commonlydocumented in studies of such groups is their use ofa learn-by-doing (versus decision making) action-basedmodel of coordinated problem solving, in which sensemaking and improvisation are the norm rather than theexception

It should be no surprise recognizing the problematic-theoretical simi­larities between disaster research and its "half-sibling" (e.g., see Wenger 1987), collective behavior. Both disaster research and collective behavior are at a theoretical standstill (e.g., see Aguirre and Quarantelli 1983), and both still rely upon every-day language rather than a broader scheme for describing events (e.g., see Weller and Quarantelli 1973, McPhail 1992). Works by Kreps and Bosworth (1994) and Dombrowsky (1981; 1987), (and perhaps Barton's 1970 classic work) reflect the theoretical attention disaster research needs to build.

Also, with disaster research having strong theoretical ties with the study of collective behavior(Wenger 1987), and with the field of collective behavior often looking at issues related to social change {e.g., riots, social move­ments), another link between disasters and social change has implicitly

By examiningwork practices, and tracing how those practices are reified in the social-technical organization of a group that is forming and stabilizing as they do the work, we learn not just what this particular group did, but also how the mechanisms by which collective action in digital environments are organizedbottom-up. We also learn how those lessonsaregraduated into prescriptivetop-down direction to sustain and direct future action

Mendonça, et al.[26] and Kendra and Wachtendorf [20] have characterized this as improvisation, whichhas strong parallels to the conversations in CSCW about the nature of situated cognition or situated work [14,44], as well as the relationship between informal as well as formal aspects of work [30,44]

These protocols, formal structures, plans, procedures, and schemes can be con-ceived of asmechanismsin the sense that they (1) are objectified in some way(explicitly stated, represented in material form), and (2) are deterministic or at leastgive reasonably predictable results if applied properly. And they aremechanisms ofinteractionin the sense that they reduce the complexity of articulating cooperativework.