We are witnessing a general threat to intellectual work, with misalignment between the outcome of the use of AI and its initial purpose.

Thank you for the additional clarification and for the considerable expenditure of explanatory effort represented by the preceding response. Before proceeding further with the underlying technical question, it may be useful to establish a more explicit shared understanding concerning the relationship between the quantity of information supplied, the extent to which that information is necessary for the immediate decision being made, and the finite amount of maintainer attention available for converting the supplied information into an actionable conclusion. For the avoidance of doubt, the concern being raised here is not that factual accuracy, reproducibility, technical precision, correction of earlier assertions, or sufficient evidentiary support are undesirable. Each of those properties is useful and may, under the appropriate circumstances, be necessary. The difficulty arises when the information required to establish the relevant fact is accompanied by additional explanation whose presence, although potentially interesting and perhaps even technically correct, does not materially alter the fact itself, the confidence with which that fact can be evaluated, or the action that follows from accepting it. Every response imposes what might be described as a comprehension obligation upon its recipients. That obligation consists not merely of reading the words presented, but also of determining which statements constitute factual claims, which function as evidence, which are qualifications, which are conjectures, which supersede earlier statements, which merely restate conclusions already established elsewhere, and which are included primarily to explain the circumstances under which some other statement came to be made. The cost of satisfying this obligation tends to increase with the length, density, and structural complexity of the response, even where the amount of information capable of changing the maintainer’s eventual decision remains constant. This consideration is particularly significant in the context of open-source maintenance, where the time required to read, classify, verify, and contextualize one response cannot simultaneously be used to reproduce another issue, review a pull request, investigate a regression, prepare a release, answer another contributor, evaluate a dependency update, improve documentation, or perform any of the numerous other activities competing for the same limited pool of attention. Consequently, verbosity is not entirely without cost merely because the information is supplied voluntarily, constructively, and with the intention of preventing misunderstanding. Its cost is transferred to each recipient who must determine which portions are operationally necessary and which portions can be disregarded without compromising the validity of the resulting conclusion. We would therefore ask that future responses be prepared according to something approximating a principle of minimum sufficient communication, by which a response contains the smallest collection of independently useful facts required to answer the question currently being asked or to establish the behavior currently under discussion. Information should not be included solely because it is adjacent to the subject, because it records the path by which a conclusion was reached, because it anticipates questions that have not yet been asked, because it exhaustively delineates the boundaries of claims whose ordinary interpretation is already sufficiently narrow, or because omitting it might leave some peripheral aspect of the subject less than comprehensively characterized. The use of the word “smallest” in this context should not be interpreted as a request for artificial abbreviation, unexplained assertions, incomplete reproduction instructions, or the omission of facts required to distinguish the reported behavior from another superficially similar behavior. It means, instead, that each sentence should justify the attention required to process it by contributing something without which a maintainer would be materially less able to verify the report or determine the appropriate next action. Where the removal of a sentence would leave the actionable meaning unchanged, that sentence should generally be presumed removable. Where several paragraphs can be replaced by a single concrete observation without sacrificing reproducibility, the concrete observation should be preferred. Where a mechanism can be demonstrated through a minimal configuration change and an immediately observable result, that demonstration should ordinarily take precedence over a comprehensive narrative describing the mechanism’s provenance, implications, surrounding implementation details, and hypothetical manifestations in configurations not yet tested. Qualifications should similarly be restricted to those that alter the reasonable interpretation of the principal claim. It is generally unnecessary to enumerate every proposition that is not being asserted, every environment that has not been tested, every alternative explanation that was considered and rejected, every inference that a sufficiently careful reader might otherwise draw, or every reason the author has for believing that an untested configuration may behave similarly. Where uncertainty is relevant, it is usually sufficient to identify the precise boundary of verification rather than narrating the broader epistemological status of all related propositions. One potentially useful standard for deciding whether information warrants inclusion is to ask whether the behavior that actually occurs, the smallest reliable procedure that causes it to occur, and any qualification without which those statements would become materially misleading remain understandable and reproducible after the information is removed. If they do, the removed material was probably not necessary for the immediate response. Background already available elsewhere in the issue, detailed explanations of standard language or bundler behavior, speculative generalizations beyond the verified reproducer, extended discussion of why an earlier reproducer was inadequate, descriptions of investigative paths that did not produce the final result, and multiple reformulations of the same conclusion at successively different levels of abstraction should normally be retained by the author unless and until a maintainer requests them. This request is not intended as a judgment concerning the effort, competence, thoroughness, or good faith involved in preparing the response. It concerns the format in which the result of that effort is presented. A technically correct response may nevertheless be disproportionately expensive to consume, in much the same way that a comprehensive diagnostic log may contain the relevant error while simultaneously making that error more difficult to locate. The objective is not to minimize the amount of investigation performed by the reporter, but to minimize the portion of that investigation which every subsequent reader must reconstruct before reaching the actionable result. We recognize that determining what is essential requires judgment and that contributors cannot invariably know in advance which detail a maintainer will consider relevant. In such circumstances, the preferred strategy is progressive disclosure, under which the shortest adequately supported factual answer is provided initially and further supporting detail is supplied only when a maintainer identifies a concrete need for it. It is substantially easier for a maintainer to request one missing fact than it is for multiple maintainers to independently identify and disregard several pages of facts that do not affect the decision being made. The appropriate optimization target is therefore not maximum completeness at the time of the first response, but minimum aggregate effort across all participants required to reach a sufficiently supported conclusion. A concise response that results in one targeted follow-up question may satisfy that target more effectively than an exhaustive response which attempts to preempt every conceivable follow-up but requires substantially greater processing time from every reader, including readers for whom most of the anticipated questions would never have arisen. Facts directly necessary to establish the reported behavior should be included. Evidence directly necessary to verify those facts should be included only to the extent that verification would otherwise be impractical or ambiguous. Context that may be interesting but does not change the facts, their verification, or the resulting action should be omitted unless specifically requested. Where several formulations communicate materially identical information, the shortest formulation should be selected. Where a direct statement is available, it should take precedence over a narrative account of how the statement was discovered. Where one verified claim is sufficient, it should not be surrounded by multiple hypothetical extensions. Where the answer to a question can be expressed as a concrete condition and an observable consequence, the response should ordinarily contain that condition and consequence without attempting to supply a general theory of every adjacent failure mode. It is also important to clarify that this does not mean providing a concise summary followed by the same extended explanation that the summary was intended to replace. The continued presence of the explanation preserves most of the reading, classification, and triage cost. A summary is not a substitute for removing unnecessary material when the unnecessary material remains directly beneath it. Supporting details can remain available to the author and can be supplied in a subsequent response if a maintainer determines that the initial facts are insufficient. Nor is it generally necessary to surround relevant facts with introductory courtesies, repeated apologies, rhetorical transitions, anticipatory defenses, summaries of prior misunderstandings, explanations of why the current answer differs from a previous answer, assurances about claims that are not being made, or concluding restatements of conclusions already expressed. Courtesy is appreciated, but its communicative footprint need not substantially exceed that of the technical substance. A correction is most useful when it makes the corrected claim immediately identifiable and permits the obsolete claim to be discarded without requiring the reader to reconstruct the entire history of the correction. Applied to the present exchange, the information that appears most capable of affecting maintainer action is that disabling HMR removes the React refresh preamble, that the resulting client bootstrap no longer causes the relevant environment initialization to occur before createClientRpc is evaluated, and that server-function construction consequently encounters a ReferenceError because process is unavailable. The precise import-order mechanics, the contrast with the initial theory concerning a relative URL, the implications for other plugins whose preambles may differ, the explanation of why the originally linked example does not exhibit the behavior under its default configuration, and the broader characterization of the problem as a dependency on an incidental ordering guarantee may become relevant during implementation, but they need not all be transmitted before maintainers have had an opportunity to evaluate the narrower verified condition and its immediate consequence. In consideration of the asymmetry between the effort required for an author to preserve additional material and the cumulative effort required for every recipient to inspect and classify that material, and with due regard for the limited and nonrenewable character of volunteer maintainer attention as it relates to the substantially renewable supply of potentially relevant contextual exposition, future participation would be most effective if each response were reduced, before submission, to only those empirically established statements whose omission would prevent reproduction, materially distort the reported behavior, or leave the specific question under consideration unanswered, with all supplementary narrative, speculative extension, duplicative reformulation, historical reconstruction, rhetorical cushioning, and otherwise nonessential elaboration withheld pending an explicit indication that its disclosure is required.

/rest-api/v3/stream_composite

Warning: This page maybe not yet fully loaded

Bei technischen Problemen können wir dir besser helfen, wenn du folgende Angaben machst: Webseite (URL):Datum und Uhrzeit:Sprache:Verwendetes Gerät:Smartphone: IOS oder AndroidDesktopcomputer: Browser und VersionTablet: IOS oder AndroidRegistrierter Nutzer oder Gast:Vorgang, der das Problem ausgelöst hat:Bitte beschreibe alle Schritte, die du bis zur Fehlermeldung ausgeführt hast

AI should be a tier one issue that you're that people are voting for

Students Are Telling Us They Feel Invisible. We Should Listen.

Your pipeline was flawless: ✅ FILTER: x > 0 kept [1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 10]

2.40 Summary: The 3 Core Functional Patterns

Benefits

Summary of list operations

1.17 What We’ve Covered ✅

This bug will be marked as "Depends on" bugs that are needed to complete implementation of css-view-transitions-1. The dependency tree can be used to view a list of these dependencies. Please do not add comments about specific issues to this bug; they belong in their own bugs.

ERA Livestock Data Exploration

there’s an idea that dealing with climate change is an issue for our institutions. Whereas you can see by clear evidence that our institutions have a track record of completely failing to address climate change at all levels throughout the entire history of the climate discourse.

Unfortunately, $ method_name -s doesn't work in Pry, but I hope that some day it will get fixed. Just a ref to issue: pry/pry#1756

whoever the Democratic nominee may be um anyone is preferable to uh the uh Prospect of a 00:10:40 Donald Trump emboldened by this decision and threatening to start imposing autocracy

e 28 avril, TotalEnergies assignait en justice Greenpeace France en raison de la publication d’un rapport qui interroge les calculs effectués par la multinationale sur ses émissions de CO2. La procédure, qui présente la particularité de reposer sur des dispositions du code monétaire et financier, vise notamment à faire interrompre toute diffusion actuelle ou à venir du rapport

Regression in 3.13: custom matcher hash argument improperly converted to keyword args, results in ArgumentError

Board view Subtasks are shown slightly indented from the main task Subtasks can be dragged out of the parent task to a new list to indicate their status. For subtasks with a different status to their parent, it displays a dummy parent (ghosted), above the subtask in the list, with the parent's status label visible against the dummy. Dragging the parent task to a different list changes the label of the child tasks as well, and any sub tasks already in its new list are re-organised under the parent and any dummy removed

Using an issue tracker without them is, in my opinion, a little like using an outlining program that only supports two levels of nesting, or like using Wiki software that doesn't have the concept of reverse links. Makes me sad!

I disagree. What is expressed is an attempt to solve X by making something that should maybe be agnostic of time asynchronous. The problem is related to design: time taints code. You have a choice: either you make the surface area of async code grow and grow or you treat it as impure code and you lift pure synchronous logic in an async context. Without more information on the surrounding algorithm, we don't know if the design decision to make SymbolTable async was the best decision and we can't propose an alternative. This question was handled superficially and carelessly by the community.

最近我在試著翻譯 Do things that don’t scale 這篇有名的文章，在用 chatGPT 的時候，發現一個有趣的差別。 Airbnb now seems like an unstoppable juggernaut, but early on it was so fragile that about 30 days of going out and engaging in person with users made the difference between success and failure. chatGPT: Airbnb現在似乎是一個不可阻擋的巨無霸，但在早期，只要花大約30天的時間親自外出與使用者互動，就可能決定成功與失敗之間的差別。 我的翻譯：目前 Airbnb 似乎是個無人能擋的巨無霸，但它初期其實脆弱到如果三十天內不去和使用者互動，迎接他們的就會是失敗而不是成功。 chatGPT 「只要花 30 天就會決定成功與失敗」聽起來很不知所云，不知道到底是會失敗還是會成功？那是要超過三十天還是要低於三十天？ 但如果是用我的版本，要表達的就很明確：「超過三十天不去找用戶的話，你就完蛋了。」 雖然我不確定自己翻的到底是否符合原話，但至少讀起來的「立場」較為明確，就是在說你就是要趕快去找使用者。但如果是 chatGPT 的版本，就會看不出來到底什麼東西會決定成功與失敗？又怎樣會導致成功、怎樣會導致失敗？

I'm going to close this thread which will no longer be monitored. In case you want to report a new issue or you can’t make project to be internal, please do not hesitate to create a new Issue Tracker thread describing your situation.

Our freedom is on the ballot.

Reproductive Rights

take back our families’ freedom to make the decisions that are best for us

who should have the right to make personal medical decisions about abortion: women and their families

lives at risk

health and safety of patients

family decisions

birth control

miscarriage care

exceptions for rape or incest

protect bodily autonomy

whether to continue one's own pregnancy

remote learning

“Due to poor lightingwe are unable to identify your face.”

while I'm not as strongly against the above example code as the others, specifically because you did call it out as pseudocode and it is for illustrative purposes only, perhaps all of the above comments could be addressed by replacing your query = ... lines with simple query = // Insert case-sensitive/insensitive search here comments as that keeps the conversation away from the SQL injection topic and focuses on what you're trying to show. In other words, keep it on the logic, not the implementation. It will silence the critics.

Related: #45017 ActiveRecord silently triggers a rollback when return is used in the transaction block.

I think your issue is a bug (it's different from this issue which is a feature request about the split command). I opened this issue you may want to follow: #560

This issue is for discussing the use case given in the next section, and the unevaluatedProperties proposal to solve it. If you want to discuss a different use case or a different proposal, you MUST file your own issue to do so. Any comments attempting to revive other lines of discussion from #515, introduce new problems or solutions, or otherwise derail this discussion will be deleted to keep the focus clear. Please file a new issue and link back to this one instead.

This hasn't yet been scheduled, but we're tracking it on our backlog as something we want to do this year. A few months ago, we arranged for additional capacity to address items like this that have waited for so long. Now that additional capacity is available, it's just a matter of scheduling based on relative priority. We're anxious to get this one done, and I hope to soon have a clearer date to post here.

raise StandardError.new "No authentication is configured for ActiveStorage"

I'm thinking it might be worth a separate issue. I'm not sure though, so for now mentioning it here.

What were (or still are) the relative attitudes towards issues related to gender at our respective institutions? What did the students at our respective institutions think about the gender issues of their day? We take particular focus on trans, queer, and women’s issues where they arise.

Stop autoclosing of PRs While the idea of cleaning up the the PRs list by nudging reviewers with the stale message and closing PRs that didn't got a review in time cloud work for the maintainers, in practice it discourages contributors to submit contributions. Keeping PRs open and not providing feedback also doesn't help with contributors motivation, so while I'm disabling this feature of the bot we still need to come up with a process that will help us to keep the number of PRs in check, but celebrate the work contributors already did instead of ignoring it, or dismissing in the form of a "stale" alerts, and automatically closing PRs.

I don't understand why it should be so hard to keep issues open / reopen them. That's just going to cause people to open a duplicate issue/PR — or (if they notice in time) cause people to add extra "not stale" noise when the bot warns it's about to be closed. Wouldn't it be preferable to keep the discussion together in one place instead of spreading across duplicate issues? (Similarly, moving the meta conversation about an issue out to a completely separate system (Discord) seems like the wrong direction, because it wouldn't be visible to/discoverable by those arriving at the closed issue.) I get how it's useful to have stale issues not cluttering the list. But if interes/activity later picks up again, then "stale" is no longer accurate and its status should be automatically updated to reflect its newfound freshness... like it did back here:

?

To be perfectly frank, this proposal seems far more about creating the appearance of safety than addressing an actual deficit in application correctness. I'm not questioning the value in detecting unhandled promises (resolved OR rejected) as a development tool for calling attention to a potentially undesired flow... but just like other lint rules, this belongs in tooling and NOT the execution environment.

may always

Dissent

the Second Amendment

painted an American flag on his bare chest, but painted it upside down.

Arthur Smith

Info for maintainers Triage this issue by using labels. If information is missing, add a helpful comment and then I-issue-template label. If the issue is a question, add the I-question label. If the issue is valid but there is no time to troubleshoot it, consider adding the help wanted label. After troubleshooting the issue, please add the R-awaiting answer label. Thank you!

could you please log the separate issue to track your problem?

No accounting for protein movement

webpack-bot commented on Nov 13, 2020 For maintainers only: webpack-4 webpack-5 bug critical-bug enhancement documentation performance dependencies question

One complicating issue when trying to make sense across multiple communities is that not only do different communities have different cultures and practices, but also different epistemologies: different languages to describe their community and the soci(et)al context it operates in, with often different meanings attached to the terminologies used.

The automatic conversion not only confuses people but also makes the method less extensible. See [Feature #14183] for more details about the reasons for the change in behavior, and why certain implementation choices were made.

Ok I'll reopen until the culprit is found

Please keep in mind that the GitHub issue tracker is not intended as a general support forum, but for reporting bugs and feature requests.

Closing this PR since it's been sitting here for over 2 years. Can reopen if need be.

Can you provide details of what you mean by "not working as expected"?

My advice is if you are looking for a quick and accurate answer ask to have the trouble ticket elevated immediately and to speak with an engineer that will recognize your knowledge and speak with you on your level.

"Put as much information about the problem itself into the email". This is where you show your ability to know what is important and relevant and establish your technical level. Don't be brief, don't imply, and break it down Barney style so the person receiving it knows to escalate your ticket.

Look for certain questions that have been asked every time, and put those answers into the initial email you send about the new problem. Try to add things that make the potential problem sound local. The more information you give them that you know they will be asking for in their script, the faster you will get someone who can help you. And they will thank you for it.

And if your answers tell me it's something too advanced for me, only then would I escalate it.

In one of my internship, I got to befriend a level 2 tech support, so learned a couple thing of how it worked (in that company). Level 1 was out-sourced, and they had a script to go from, regularly updated. From statistics, this took care of 90% of issues. Level 2 was a double handful of tech people, they had basic troubleshooting tools and knowledge and would solve 90% of the remaining issues. Level 3 was the engineering department (where I was), and as a result of level 1 and 2 efficiency less than 1% of issues ever got escalated. The process worked!

Actually, I've decided to stop using labels for a while. A "bug" label gives the impression that someone else is going to fix the problem. We don't have enough volunteers for that (new contributors welcome!). I try to help people working on issues, though. I've spent many hours on this one.

These are games that make arguments and encourage discussion. They don't shy away from difficult subjects.

However, since you haven't yet provided any details about how you built with Qt (Qt isn't officially supported, so you must have used a third party derivative of vim), and you haven't provided any detailed information about what error messages or malfunctions you're having with python-complete, it's not really possible to tell you how to fix the problem and get vim working with Qt.

Firstly, it's nice to see a well-structured question post!

If the bug is still there I think that it is better if it is open so others can find it if they run into the same issue.

Closing this because it's obviously not going to get fixed and it's cluttering my open issues

Triaging issues, reproducing bugs, fixing reported bugs are all helpful.

Reopening #162

let me know if you've got more issues (by opening a new issue)

Better yet, send them a link to this page to help them understand why and how to make an example app:

Yes, but honestly, and no offense intended, but I don't see the harm in these type questions, nor why some people are offended when they are asked. If I owed a website, I wouldn't mind it because it just creates more pages that can be indexed. I see it as helping the website. But, I did look and didn't see a simple answer. Again, no offense is intended. I've just never understood the complaints.

(To clarify, I'm not personally needing / waiting on this change (not currently anyway). I was just looking at all the open issues in this project while deciding whether I should start using ActiveIntegration in my project...)

I don't think seeing it in Rails PRs naturally means we should do it blankly. Put it another way, what's the justification in those PRs for doing it?

opt out of certain data collection.

Arizona University’s assistant provost for institutional research suggested that, should the use of student ID card tracking eventually become part of student retention efforts, such a move would be preceded by a “campus conversation” and students “should be given the choice to opt out of being tracked if they wish.”

One of the principles highlighted in the article was transparency.

unaware that any of their CatCard data would have been collected

Some people believed I argued that object orientation is bad simply because extends has problems, as if the two concepts are equivalent. That's certainly not what I thought I said, so let me clarify some meta-issues.

If you don't understand both sides of an issue, you cannot make an intelligent choice; in fact, if you don't understand all the ramifications of your actions, you're not designing at all. You're stumbling in the dark.

I have checked the following close stackoverflow sources : Relation passed to #or must be structurally compatible. Incompatible values: [:references]