For example, this could bring a five hour (300 minute) time horizon down to a three minute time horizon. But while the time horizons are much shorter, the growth rate is about the same as the METR's main results, with roughly two doublings each year.

Figure 4. Daily average time spent with friends. Graphed by Zach Rausch from data in Kannan & Veazie (2023), analyzing the American Time Use Study.2

Before a bug can be fixed, it has to be understood and reproduced. For every issue, a maintainer gets, they have to decipher what was supposed to happen and then spend minutes or hours piecing together their reproduction. Usually, they can’t get it right, so they have to ask for clarification. This back-and-forth process takes lots of energy and wastes everyone’s time. Instead, it’s better to provide an example app from the beginning. At the end of the day, would you rather maintainers spend their time making example apps or fixing issues?

No one has requested it before so it's certainly not something we're planning to add.

To give a little more context, structures like this often come up in my work when dealing with NoSQL datastores, especially ones that rely heavily on JSON, like Firebase, where a records unique ID isn't part of the record itself, just a key that points to it. I think most Ruby/Rails projects tend towards use cases where these sort of datastores aren't appropriate/necessary, so it makes sense that this wouldn't come up as quickly as other structures.

I apologize for the slow development of Reform after the "explosion" when I released it initially. The reason for this is I changed jobs and didn't use Reform (yet).

Ok, I have seen that there are lot of built-in and third party validations, but sooner or later I will face a validation rule not covered by this buffet. Can I build a custom one? Of course you can!

Svelte will not offer a generic way to support style customizing via contextual class overrides (as we'd do it in plain HTML). Instead we'll invent something new that is entirely different. If a child component is provided and does not anticipate some contextual usage scenario (style wise) you'd need to copy it or hack around that via :global hacks.

Explicit interfaces are preferable, even if it places greater demand on library authors to design both their components and their style interfaces with these things in mind.

This has already forced me to forgo Svelte Material because I would like to add some actions to their components but I cannot and it does not make sense for them to cater to my specific use-case by baking random stuff into the library used by everyone.

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.

Your LazyLoad image is now inextensible. What if you want to add a class? Perhaps the author of LazyLoad thought of that and sets className onto the <img>. But will the author consider everything? Perhaps if we get {...state} attributes.

So, which is better? t.inspect # => "2007-11-01 15:25:00 8483885939586761/68719476736000000 UTC" t.inspect # => "2007-11-01 15:25:00.123456789000000004307366907596588134765625 UTC"

One of the GDPR's principles of data processing is storage limitation. You must not store personal data for longer than you need it in connection with a specified purpose.

it’s clear they’ll vote with their clicks not to be ad-stalked around the Internet too