Mark: The Japanese hypertext scholar Kumiyo Nakakoji talks about amplified representational talkback, which is a general design phenomenon. An architect, an artist, or a writer puts something on paper and then looks at it. You look at it, and then it seems different from what you had in mind, and you either correct what you’ve written, or you see that what you’ve written is right and correct your bad idea. That kind of representational talkback is fundamental to all sorts of all creative processes, from the sciences to the arts.

how was your code review experience with this merge request? Please tell us how we can continue to iterate and improve: Leave a 👍 or a 👎 on this comment to describe your experience.

he expressed confusion about digital pedagogy

Thanks for your making your first contribution to Cucumber, and welcome to the Cucumber committers team! You can now push directly to this repo and all other repos under the cucumber organization! In return for this generous offer we hope you will: Continue to use branches and pull requests. When someone on the core team approves a pull request (yours or someone else's), you're welcome to merge it yourself. Commit to setting a good example by following and upholding our code of conduct in your interactions with other collaborators and users. Join the community Slack channel to meet the rest of the team and make yourself at home. Don't feel obliged to help, just do what you can if you have the time and the energy. Ask if you need anything. We're looking for feedback about how to make the project more welcoming, so please tell us!

now we go back to jakub von ogskul and we find him critiquing exactly the 00:09:20 same thing for exactly the same reasons 30 years after john dewey there on the left he has picked out the reflex arc pointing out that it is a linear throughput which leaves no room 00:09:34 for subjectivity no room for intentional action no room for meaning to arise if you if the middle is only animated by inputs then it's a puppet 00:09:47 he replaces this with a model on the right that will whose terms will not be entirely clear to you as you read the article but i want you to notice one thing about it it's circular it's not a linear 00:09:59 throughput it's circular he starts by noting the embeddedness of the body in the world and the fact that the activity of the 00:10:13 body is meaningful at all times and not separable into inputs and outputs his replacement of the linear throughput with this circular model that he elaborates in various ways 00:10:25 is remarkably prescient of the basic cybernetic insight that will arise after the second world war in which it's all feedback systems positive feedback systems negative feedback systems 00:10:37 homeostatic systems um reciprocity is always involved the fact that you do something and something is done to you at the same time that that we dance in the world 00:10:50 rather than standing apart from it and recording a movie of it so his um uncovery of this basic cybernetic principle with which one might approach the body and its being in the world is 00:11:02 remarkably prescient but these profound ideas of vulnerable are often hidden because he's well frankly so charming well he's a problematic character as we'll see lately 00:11:14 but he tells a good story and he does cool experiments

Therefore, any feedback signal, even if negative, boostsyour effectiveness, and therefore self-confidence, in continuing your activity, adding to the sense offlow. (

What these communities have in common is that they collectively produce very useful—and typically high-quality—applications and information, but this without any financialcompensation or legal organization. In other words, these communities consist purely of volunteerscontributing on an informal basis to a common project. From the perspective of traditionaleconomics and organizational theory, this is paradoxical (Heylighen, 2007): why would anyoneprovide such valuable services to others without being either paid or ordered to do so? Severalauthors have investigated the motives that incite people to contribute to such communities (Ghosh,2005; Lerner & Tirole, 2002; Weber, 2004). These include curiosity, altruism, free expression, needfor belonging, desire for status and recognition, and the hope for future financial rewards for privateconsultancy after being publicly recognized for one’s expertise. More interesting for our purposethan these individual motivations, though, are the structures and processes that encourageindividuals to take part in such a collective enterprise, i.e. the underlying mobilization system.A first analysis (Heylighen, 2007) points at two fundamental mechanisms: feedback andstigmergy. By contributing a question, comment, answer, program, photo or any other input,participants hope to get a reaction from the other community members, because that would givethem an indication of whether they are on the right path, or need to make some correction. Suchfeedback provides valuable information that allows participants to get better in whatever they areinterested in. For example, a programmer who contributed a piece of code will benefit if a userpoints out a bug in that code, suggests a way to extend it, or simply confirms that the job was welldone.Stigmergy is a mechanism of spontaneous coordination between actions, where the result ofan individual’s work stimulates a next individual to continue that work (Parunak, 2006; Bolici,Howison, & Crowston, 2009; Heylighen, 2011a). For example, a paragraph contributed to aWikipedia article may incite a later reader of that paragraph to add a reference or further detail,which in turn may elicit further contributions from others.

fly·wheel/ˈflīˌ(h)wēl/ Learn to pronounce nounnoun: flywheel; plural noun: flywheels; noun: fly-wheel; plural noun: fly-wheelsa heavy revolving wheel in a machine that is used to increase the machine's momentum and thereby provide greater stability or a reserve of available power during interruptions in the delivery of power to the machine.

Some researchers have found that these discrepancies create enough "haptic dissonance" to dissuade some people from using e-readers. People expect books to look, feel and even smell a certain way; when they do not, reading sometimes becomes less enjoyable or even unpleasant. For others, the convenience of a slim portable e-reader outweighs any attachment they might have to the feel of paper books.

send off your draft or beta orproposal for feedback. Share this Intermediate Packet with a friend,family member, colleague, or collaborator; tell them that it’s still awork-in-process and ask them to send you their thoughts on it. Thenext time you sit down to work on it again, you’ll have their input andsuggestions to add to the mix of material you’re working with.

Learning targets describe the knowledge and skills students should be able to demonstrate by the end of the lesson. Learning targets are broken down into success criteria so students can self-assess and track their learning progress.

He notes that authors of such projects should consider the return on investment. It take time to go through community feedback, so one needs to determine whether the pay off will be worthwhile. Nevertheless, if his next work is suitable for community review, he’d like to do it again.

only 52% of students agree that when they give feedback, they know their voice is heard.

We are here to help you get your designs implemented on codes pixel perfectly

To ease the process of icon designing for you, we have compiled some of the best icon design sets that are created by amazing designers across the globe.

Reduce  review time to half

he fastest way to review developed websites. Add a link, drop comments, show CSS edits live to give precise feedbacks.

Researchers are also experimenting with “haptic” signals: physical nudgesdelivered via special gloves or tools that help mold a novice’s movementpatterns into those of an expert.

I can also reply to comments, providing additional feedback and building a positive teacher-student relationship.

A summary, feedback or critique is then provided, often by the e-moderator but in some cases it may be provided by the learners themselves.

Even without any feedback, we will be better off ifwe try to remember something ourselves (Jang et al. 2012).

Dweck shows convincingly thatthe most reliable predictor for long-term success is having a “growthmindset.” To actively seek and welcome feedback, be it positive ornegative, is one of the most important factors for success (andhappiness) in the long run. Conversely, nothing is a bigger hindranceto personal growth than having a “fixed mindset.” Those who fearand avoid feedback because it might damage their cherishedpositive self-image might feel better in the short term, but will quicklyfall behind in actual performance (Dweck 2006; 2013).

Once we introduce evaluation into our learning spaces, we change the way we interact with student work.

nd

NBPES

Section ?? and ??

out(A) = out(A)

provides these package

In addition to the daily limits, there are follow ratios that go into effect once you’re following a certain number of accounts:Every Twitter account can follow up to 5,000 accounts. Once you reach that number, you may need to wait until your account has more followers before you can follow additional accounts. This number is different for each account and is automatically calculated based on your unique ratio of followers to following.

Twitter Blue Publisher network

This is actively being worked on - for those interested you can follow the progress in https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/10836

After 5 years there's still no fix. This is so annoying. I'm now getting rid of all snap packages and installing deb variants instead. Finally I'll purge snap and if these weird decisions keep on going I'll also move to another distro. Common Canonical. Seriously?

During the time between becoming a DisCONaut and full (legal) membership, it's assumed that the DisCONaut is there for the long run. The new DisCOnaut has become part of an established collective with its unique group culture and, while new members will change that culture, all changes have to fit in well with what has already been built. If no major or unsolved issues arise, the nine-month mark means that the new DisCONaut becomes a full member and the appropriate legal and/or contractual procedures are undertaken.

marriage

In DisCO.coop we recommend that full membership is only awarded after nine continued months of working and being in the collective. This means nine months from the moment the new DisCONaut started dating, independent of their timeline options.

Into the Dating Phase! click to enlarge and animate

The Commitment Statement

It is also important to have a second, more thorough interview prior to signing the Commitment Statement.

need

Clarity that vibe trumps all other considerations, meaning, if there's a bad fit evident from things like poor or indirect communication, or evident discomfort with the style and rhythms of the existing group, that usually signals a weird vibe. Weird vibe = no DisCO Dating [39].

co-dependent

A DisCO Ley Line is, basically, an agreed-on transfer of invested credits between one DisCO and another.

unlike value tracking for contributors, it's not expected to be either latent or unfulfilled.

Similarly, this work is initially considered to be Invested Lovework. You can read more about those terms in this section. For now "invested" means "unpaid" and "Lovework" means "voluntary work".

Whether it's a DisCO worker-coop, DisCO.NP or any other type of DisCO application, DisCOlarships are announced by the hosting DisCO through its social media channels, newsletters or community calls. Before entering into DisCOlarship, the hosting DisCO needs to ensure it has the human and conceptual capacity.

DisCOlarships are one way to advanced from a Casual to Committed DisCO relation. As such, they are considered a Casual Relationship leaning towards committed relationships with DisCOs in general (if not to the particular DisCO hosting the DisCOlarship).

A DisCOlarship involves regular "visits" to a DisCO to learn its practices and get to know DisCONauts in the real world.

In other DisCOs, contributors can help with whatever productive work is taken by the particular DisCO. So, for example, in a worker-owned DisCO community garden, contributors could drop in to help with the gardening when convenient and that value will be tracked for future inclusion, should they want to become dating members and, eventually, committed. In a DisCO.NP dedicated to creating mesh networks for community WiFi, the contributors can help set up the infrastructure for their own Internet connections and, having learned in the process, can apply that knowledge (and attendant credits) toward future work in that particular DisCO.NP.

Why do we track the value of casual contributions?

(these terms are further explained in this section: Ways to Account for Work).

it is much easier to record contributions according to grade and measure. If you're not familiar with those terms, it basically means "quantity and quality".

The DisCO.NP may contract services when lacking the capacity - See Undercapacity and contracting outside the DisCO.NP. The DisCO.NP may also choose to engange with other DisCOs in work relationships and value transactions - see DisCOverses and Intra-DisCO Value Flows.

Contributors must know that they don't have priority over Committed or Dating members of the DisCO.NP, and that they won't be compensated (whether immediately or ever) for any of their contributions.

they are value tracked.

The DisCO.NP, however, is not in any way obliged to accept the contribution. Using two of the examples above, if the contributed artwork or code isn't up to standard, the DisCO.NP will not use it. Quality Control and Post-Hoc evaluation is very important in DisCO — if we are to provide viable alternatives to the mainstream economy, we need to ensure we do stuff right, according to the individual criteria of each DisCO LAB.[24] Applying the dating metaphor, if "we’re really not made for each other", we'll move on with no hard feelings. Casual relationships are consent-based and depend on clear communication. A casual contributor doesn't really have to do anything for the DisCO.NP, in terms of building our support structure and using the DisCO's workflow tools, for instance. Contributors can get in touch whenever they feel like it and vice versa. The bulk of the care work for the collective, including all admin and project management tasks, is undertaken by the DisCONauts.

This one possible DisCO Journey. In others people may remain in one circle, or go through a DisCOlarship and start their own separate DisCO, etc.

To recap: We have distinguished two main states: Casual and Committed. "Casual" means little responsibility. These are no-strings-attached relationships for mutual benefit. There are two types of Casual Relationship: Supporters (Very casual interactions) and Contributors (More active interactions and actual contributions to the DisCO.NP and its mission). "Committed" signifies a stated commitment of responsibility to the DisCO.NP and its members. Those wanting to progress from Casual to Committed have two options: DisCOLarships (practical DisCO training with no firm expectation of joining the DisCO). DisCO Dating: Intense mentoring program for applicants to join the DisCO in which they are being mentored.

1 DisCOLarships: Where individuals regularly "visit" the DisCO.NP to learn about DisCO culture and structure in the real world, get to know the people, etc. There are minimal responsibilities and the DisCOLar is free to start their own DisCO afterward or join the same DisCO they have trained in. 2 The DisCO Dating Phase: Where potential members make a firm commitment to go through the DisCO.NP's mentoring and training program in order to become committed members or DisCONauts. There are considerable, consented-upon responsibilities on the part of the DisCO Dating Member and the DisCO-NP itself during this process.

Beyond Contributors, there is another type of casual relationship with a lesser level of responsibility: Supporters.

There are two additional "bridging states" between the Casual/Committed poles, which we will also discuss.

within a DisCO Non-Profit

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