61 Matching Annotations
  1. Last 7 days
  2. Sep 2020
  3. Aug 2020
    1. The collection of changes to fix the issues we want to address would be probably of the same size, but it would make easier to review and merge if we could break this PR in many steps. I find it really hard to believe we need to change 170 lines in a single commit to be able to fix this issue. We probably could break the first commit in many commits, test the class better and that would give more confidence over what is being changed. Right now I see a huge diff, with a few assertions changes and no real reason why all those lines had to change.
    1. New information that would be useful toward the future usage or troubleshooting of GitLab should not be written directly in a forum or other messaging system, but added to a docs MR and then referenced, as described above.
    2. When you encounter new information not available in GitLab’s documentation (for example, when working on a support case or testing a feature), your first step should be to create a merge request (MR) to add this information to the docs. You can then share the MR in order to communicate this information.
  4. Jul 2020
  5. Jun 2020
    1. Sometimes, the line between 'bug' and 'feature' is a hard one to draw. Generally, a feature is anything that adds new behavior, while a bug is anything that causes incorrect behavior. Sometimes, the core team will have to make a judgment call.
    2. Please don't put "feature request" items into GitHub Issues. If there's a new feature that you want to see added to Ruby on Rails, you'll need to write the code yourself - or convince someone else to partner with you to write the code. Later in this guide, you'll find detailed instructions for proposing a patch to Ruby on Rails. If you enter a wish list item in GitHub Issues with no code, you can expect it to be marked "invalid" as soon as it's reviewed.
  6. May 2020
    1. We iterate to deliver features, so we often don't have functionality that people expect. For this reason, 'people could reasonably expect this functionality' does not make it a bug.
    2. If people care about a missing feature, then ideally the issue should be marked as ~"Accepting merge requests"
  7. Apr 2020
    1. The Authenticity Token is a countermeasure to Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF). What is CSRF, you ask? It's a way that an attacker can potentially hijack sessions without even knowing session tokens.
    2. Rails does not issue the same stored token with every form. Neither does it generate and store a different token every time. It generates and stores a cryptographic hash in a session and issues new cryptographic tokens, which can be matched against the stored one, every time a page is rendered.
    3. Since the authenticity token is stored in the session, the client cannot know its value. This prevents people from submitting forms to a Rails app without viewing the form within that app itself. Imagine that you are using service A, you logged into the service and everything is ok. Now imagine that you went to use service B, and you saw a picture you like, and pressed on the picture to view a larger size of it. Now, if some evil code was there at service B, it might send a request to service A (which you are logged into), and ask to delete your account, by sending a request to http://serviceA.com/close_account. This is what is known as CSRF (Cross Site Request Forgery). If service A is using authenticity tokens, this attack vector is no longer applicable, since the request from service B would not contain the correct authenticity token, and will not be allowed to continue.
    1. This API uses request body in GET requests. For a long time this was prohibited in RFC2616 HTTP specification, but since RFCs 7230-7237, it is only discouraged, since older implementations could reject such requests. However, given that major APIs such as ElasticSearch's already implement GET with request bodies, there is precedence to such implementation.

      My first sighting of the sending a request body with get request.

    1. descriptive study of a large develop-ment team—roughly 450 people producing about 9,000 annotationson about 1,250 documents over 10 months—using a Web-based anno-tation system.
  8. Mar 2020
    1. “But, if you’re unsure or haven’t mapped out entirely your processing activities,” he said, “it’s impossible to accurately reflect what your users or clients are consenting to when they complete a consent request.”
    1. An example of an extended consent form that allows users to give consent in a more granular manner – i.e. selectively for a number of processing purposes (analytics, remarketing or content personalization)
    2. A single consent form is useful when consent is requested for a single purpose. Here: analytics

      This seems like an important distinction:  Probably (?) you can only use a simple Agree/Disagree consent request if you only have a single purpose/category that you are obtaining consent for.

      As soon as your site has multiple categories to need consent, then you must allow individual consent/refusal of consent for each individual category/purpose.

      This is alluded to just a little bit further on:

      Consent should also be granular; users must be allowed to selectively decide what types of tracking, analytics and other activities their data can be used for.

    1. Don't be discouraged when you get feedback about a method that isn't all sunshine and roses. Facets has been around long enough now that it needs to maintain a certain degree of quality control, and that means serious discernment about what goes into the library. That includes having in depth discussions the merits of methods, even about the best name for a method --even if the functionality has been accepted the name may not.

      about: merits

  9. Feb 2020
    1. it is worth opening a merge request with the minimal viable change instead of opening an issue encouraging open feedback on the problem without proposing any specific change directly.
    1. Although unexpected, a high-3He/4He source dominating the isotope ratio could explain why the R/Ra values are higher than those found for MORBs. This would be most visible in rocks that have low helium concentrations and low U-Th-Sm contents, such as recycled pelagic sediments strongly depleted in almost all their helium and U-Th during subduction

      Could use further explanation

    2. [8 ± 1 R/Ra (SD)]

      What does this mean? Needs some translation

  10. Dec 2019
  11. Nov 2019
    1. Feature requests are great, but they usually end up lying around the issue tracker indefinitely. Sending a pull request is a much better way of getting a particular feature into Capybara.
  12. Aug 2019
    1. For every question you might have, please create a discussion thread, not a single comment. This makes it a bit easier to see and reply to the question, instead of questions and answers getting mixed together:
    1. Art by O’Hare and Bell highlight - both visually and conceptually - the dialogic quality of annotation expressing power.

      While I'm reading this, I can't help but wishing that Hypothes.is would add a redaction functionality to their product. They could potentially effect it by using the highlighter functionality, but changing the CSS to have the color shown be the same as that of the (body) text instead of being yellow.

  13. Apr 2017
    1. Watch the Video Request Quote

      Can we get a third button where customers can ask for a demo.

  14. Jan 2016
  15. Apr 2015
    1. Annotate

      Nice to see hypothes.is off the ground. One thing that genius has that would be welcome is the ability to up/downvote comments. A casual glance at the annotations on this page and you'll see a lot of cruft that should be hidden by default, perhaps the way reddit hides posts below a certain threshold.

  16. Mar 2015
  17. Feb 2014
    1. As far as I know, the major concerns of Zotero are: Storing and searching items in a library Assigning user-supplied metadata to these items Exporting the metada in some common bibliogaphic formats Additional, it appears Zotero allows to store notes. So what's the relationship to h? To the extent notes in Zotero can accommodate the richness of an annotation, it could be a storage backend for h. Notes are page-level annotations, at least. We could allow Zotero users with existing libraries to import their notes as annotations.

      The question "So what's the relationship to h?" is a good one here; in particular, where does h end and other services/apps begin? I have quite a few thoughts in this area, including possible h spin-off companies, but my first interest in thinking about integrating it with other services is more from a strategic engineering perspective: what are the best places to focus h development so that it fits that composable unix-y philosophy of "do one thing well"; and I translate that thinking from tool to person... how can h help me do one thing well? As an end-user, even though I am admittedly a power-user with a lot of tools, I actually want to use as few tools as possible. The browser-extension part of h is the single most important part of the project from my end-user perspective-- the back-end infrastructure is there to support the browser-extension doing one thing well.

      The one thing I want h to do for me that I can't do with any other tool that I know of is to allow me to rapidly track my reading and thinking and note-taking habits together. I want to be able to quickly select multiple portions of text and apply commentary and tags to the text within particular activity-based or goal-based contexts. The last part of that thought is the essential element I need that is missing. Speeding up the text selection would be very helpful in making it a tool I want to use on a daily basis for everything I do, but the contexts feature is what will make h a killer app for me.

    1. Ho w to R ead a Judicia l Opin ion: A G uid e for N ew L aw Stu den ts Professor Orin S. Kerr George Washington University Law School Washington, DC Version 2.0 (August 2005) This essay is desig ned to help entering law students understand ho w to read cas es for class. It explains what judicial opinions are, how they are structured, and what you should look for when you read them. Part I explains the various ingredients found in a typical judicial opinion, and is the most essential section of the essay . Par t II discusses what you should look for when you re ad an opinion for class. Part II I con clu des with a brief discussion of why law schools use the case method.

      I need a way to add tags to a document that will apply to all annotations in a particular document (except where explicitly canceled).

      The problem is that I often want to query all annotations related to a specific document, collection of documents, or type of activity.

      Type of activity requires further explanation: Given a document or collection of documents I may annotate the document for different reasons at different times.

      For example, while annotating the reading materials, video transcripts, and related documents for the CopyrightX course there are certain types of annotations that may be "bundled together" so that when I search for those things later I can easily narrow my searches to just that subset of annotations; but at the same time I need a way to globally group things together.

      While reading judicial opinions the first activity/mode of interaction with a particular document may be to identify the structure of the judicial opinion (the document attached to this annotation describes the parts of the judicial opinion I might want to identify: *caption, case citation, author, facts of the case, law of the case, disposition, concurring and/or dissenting opinions, etc).

      The above-described mode I may use for multiple documents in one session related to the course syllabus for the week.

      To connect each of these documents together I might add the tags: copyx (my shorthand for the name of the course, CopyrightX), week 1 (how far into the course syllabus), foundations (the subject matter in the syllabus which may span week 1, week 2, etc), judicial opinions (the specific topic I am focused on learning at the moment (may or may not be related to the syllabus).

      Later on another day I might update my existing annotations or add new ones when I am preparing to study for an exam. I might add tags like to study, on midterm, on final to mark areas I need to review.

      After the exam I might add more tags based on my test score, especially focusing on areas that received a poor score so I can study that section more or, if I missed some sections so didn't study and it resulted in a poor score in that area, add tags to study for later if necessary.

      I have many more examples and modes of interaction in mind that I can explain more later, but it all hinges on a rich and flexible tagging system that:

      • allows tagging a document once in a way that applies to all annotations in a document
      • allows tagging a session once in a way that applies to all annotations in all documents connected to a particular session
      • allows tagging a session and/or a document that bundles together new tags added to an annotation (e.g. tags for grammar/spelling, tags for rhetological fallacy classification, etc)
      • fast keyboard-based selection of content
      • batch selection of annotation areas with incremental filling-- I may want to simply select all the parts of a document to annotate first and then increment through each of those placeholders to fill in tags and commentary
      • Mark multiple sections of the document at once to combine into a single annotation
      • Excerpting only parts of a text selection, but still carry the surrounding textual context with the excerpt to easily expose the surrounding context when necessary
      • A summary view of a document that is the result of remixing parts of the original document with both clarifications or self-containing summary re-writes and/or commentary from the reader
      • structural tagging vs content tagging