There is an observable widespread tendency to give an awk answer to almost everything, but that should not be inferred as a rule to be followed, and if there's (say) a Python answer that involves less programming then surely that is quite on point as an answer for a readership of users.

If you're having to look at GitHub, it seems like you didn't find a situation yourself where the requested feature would make you happier. I would advice you not to attempt to find use cases beforehand, just let them find you.

Matz, alas, I cannot offer one. You see, Ruby--coding generally--is just a hobby for me. I spend a fair bit of time answering Ruby questions on SO and would have reached for this method on many occasions had it been available. Perhaps readers with development experience (everybody but me?) could reflect on whether this method would have been useful in projects they've worked on.

A complete snapshot of the user’s browser window at that moment in time will be captured, pixel by pixel (!)

The mix of a fingerprint and first-party cookies is pervasive as Google can give a very high level of entropy when it comes to distinguishing an individual person.

Google encouraging site admins to put reCaptcha all over their sites, and then sharing the resulting risk scores with those admins is great for security, Perona thinks, because he says it “gives site owners more control and visibility over what’s going on” with potential scammer and bot attacks, and the system will give admins more accurate scores than if reCaptcha is only using data from a single webpage to analyze user behavior. But there’s the trade-off. “It makes sense and makes it more user-friendly, but it also gives Google more data,”

For instance, Google’s reCaptcha cookie follows the same logic of the Facebook “like” button when it’s embedded in other websites—it gives that site some social media functionality, but it also lets Facebook know that you’re there.

What's terrible and dangerous is a faceless organization deciding to arbitrarily and silently control what I can and can not do with my browser on my computer. Orwell is screaming in his grave right now. This is no different than Mozilla deciding I don't get to visit Tulsi Gabbard's webpage because they don't like her politics, or I don't get to order car parts off amazon because they don't like hyundai, or I don't get to download mods for minecraft, or talk to certain people on facebook.

They don't have to host the extension on their website, but it's absolutely and utterly unacceptable for them to interfere with me choosing to come to github and install it.

I appreciate the vigilance, but it would be even better to actually publish a technical reasoning for why do you folks believe Firefox is above the device owner, and the root user, and why there should be no possibility through any means and configuration protections to enable users to run their own code in the release version of Firefox.

Despite their awarded diplomas in the art of writing, you'd be surprised at how many editors and journalists in the United States make English mistakes. For instance, "an" is still often coupled with words that begin with an "H" sound, even though this is improper. I'd advise against treating material from news sources as if it were error-free or even a higher authority on grammar.

Before we get to passwords, surely you already have in mind that Google knows everything about you. It knows what websites you’ve visited, it knows where you’ve been in the real world thanks to Android and Google Maps, it knows who your friends are thanks to Google Photos. All of that information is readily available if you log in to your Google account. You already have good reason to treat the password for your Google account as if it’s a state secret.

Before each election, I have traditionally written up an analysis of the California ballot measures and send it to my friends. It's not always obvious what the "real" agenda is on each one, and even with clear purposes there are often competing interests at play. These writings are the result of my own analysis, which comes from a libertarian perspective, and I'm not knowingly affiliated with any party behind any ballot measure. I believe that mere lists of "vote yes" or "vote no" are not very helpful except for sheep: it's important to know why one is urged to vote in any given direction. I would rather you vote against my position because you had an opposing view than vote with my position because you flipped a coin.

Try doing the equivalent of #indexes without it. Not that it's especially hard, but you have to stop and work out a solutuon. When you need it, that's when you wish there were already a method for it.

You haven't shown any real use case yet. I don't deny that the functionality alone would be a good shortcut itself just like any other proposal we see every day.

auto-closes the related issue(s) (http://tr.im/vFqem).

Description explains the issue / use-case resolved

"The more your tests resemble the way your software is used, the more confidence they can give you. "

You want to write maintainable tests for your React components. As a part of this goal, you want your tests to avoid including implementation details of your components and rather focus on making your tests give you the confidence for which they are intended. As part of this, you want your testbase to be maintainable in the long run so refactors of your components (changes to implementation but not functionality) don't break your tests and slow you and your team down.

We try to only expose methods and utilities that encourage you to write tests that closely resemble how your web pages are used.

The more your tests resemble the way your software is used, the more confidence they can give you.

Most of the damaging features have to do with encouraging testing implementation details. Primarily, these are shallow rendering, APIs which allow selecting rendered elements by component constructors, and APIs which allow you to get and interact with component instances (and their state/properties) (most of enzyme's wrapper APIs allow this).

For the uninitiated, Granny Smith was Maria Ann Smith, a resident of the area who in 1868 "accidentally" grew the first batch of green apples that now bear her name.

Why you might want to hire me.

RAJ: Paul, you are suffering from your “should” system. You are experiencing how difficult it is to lay down conceptualized processes and theories. I will not leave my position that this conceptual thinking relates in no way to what is Actually going on—which is the infinitude of your Being unfolding Itself perfectly, properly, and nondestructively—except of course, in terms of these concepts which are binding you. They will be destroyed. They no longer serve to move you to a new base. As you are discovering, the concepts are actually impeding your growth. You must lay them down. The growth will occur. The growth is occurring. This is why you feel shoved into the corner right along with the concepts. Figuratively speaking, this is why you feel that you are going to be blown up in the blowing up of your concepts.