211 Matching Annotations
  1. Last 7 days
    1. Noo mën a def dinga fey alamaan bi.

      Quoi que tu fasses, tu paieras l'amende.

      noo -- you (?)

      mën v. -- power ; be stronger than 💪🏽; can, will.

      a -- (?).

      def v. -- do, commit, execute; to put.

      dinga -- you will.

      fey v. -- turn off, switch off 📴, appease; pay 💵.

      alamaan bi -- (French: l'amende) fine.

      bi -- the.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4y6PTqs1uCc

  2. Feb 2021
    1. URI::MailTo::EMAIL_REGEXP

      First time I've seen someone create a validator by simply matching against URI::MailTo::EMAIL_REGEXP from std lib. More often you see people copying and pasting some really long regex that they don't understand and is probably not loose enough. It's much better, though, to simply reuse a standard one from a library — by reference, rather than copying and pasting!!

    1. Since we're not passing any inputs to ListAccounts, it makes sense to use .run! instead of .run. If it failed, that would mean we probably messed up writing the interaction.
    2. ActiveModel provides a powerful framework for defining callbacks. ActiveInteraction hooks into that framework to allow hooking into various parts of an interaction's lifecycle.
    1. For branching out a separate path in an activity, use the Path() macro. It’s a convenient, simple way to declare alternative routes

      Seems like this would be a very common need: once you switch to a custom failure track, you want it to stay on that track until the end!!!

      The problem is that in a Railway, everything automatically has 2 outputs. But we really only need one (which is exactly what Path gives us). And you end up fighting the defaults when there are the automatic 2 outputs, because you have to remember to explicitly/verbosely redirect all of those outputs or they may end up going somewhere you don't want them to go.

      The default behavior of everything going to the next defined step is not helpful for doing that, and in fact is quite frustrating because you don't want unrelated steps to accidentally end up on one of the tasks in your custom failure track.

      And you can't use fail for custom-track steps becase that breaks magnetic_to for some reason.

      I was finding myself very in need of something like this, and was about to write my own DSL, but then I discovered this. I still think it needs a better DSL than this, but at least they provided a way to do this. Much needed.

      For this example, I might write something like this:

      step :decide_type, Output(Activity::Left, :credit_card) => Track(:with_credit_card)
      
      # Create the track, which would automatically create an implicit End with the same id.
      Track(:with_credit_card) do
          step :authorize
          step :charge
      end
      

      I guess that's not much different than theirs. Main improvement is it avoids ugly need to specify end_id/end_task.

      But that wouldn't actually be enough either in this example, because you would actually want to have a failure track there and a path doesn't have one ... so it sounds like Subprocess and a new self-contained ProcessCreditCard Railway would be the best solution for this particular example... Subprocess is the ultimate in flexibility and gives us all the flexibility we need)


      But what if you had a path that you needed to direct to from 2 different tasks' outputs?

      Example: I came up with this, but it takes a lot of effort to keep my custom path/track hidden/"isolated" and prevent other tasks from automatically/implicitly going into those steps:

      class Example::ValidationErrorTrack < Trailblazer::Activity::Railway
        step :validate_model, Output(:failure) => Track(:validation_error)
        step :save,           Output(:failure) => Track(:validation_error)
      
        # Can't use fail here or the magnetic_to won't work and  Track(:validation_error) won't work
        step :log_validation_error, magnetic_to: :validation_error,
          Output(:success) => End(:validation_error), 
          Output(:failure) => End(:validation_error) 
      end
      
      puts Trailblazer::Developer.render o
      Reloading...
      
      #<Start/:default>
       {Trailblazer::Activity::Right} => #<Trailblazer::Activity::TaskBuilder::Task user_proc=validate_model>
      #<Trailblazer::Activity::TaskBuilder::Task user_proc=validate_model>
       {Trailblazer::Activity::Left} => #<Trailblazer::Activity::TaskBuilder::Task user_proc=log_validation_error>
       {Trailblazer::Activity::Right} => #<Trailblazer::Activity::TaskBuilder::Task user_proc=save>
      #<Trailblazer::Activity::TaskBuilder::Task user_proc=save>
       {Trailblazer::Activity::Left} => #<Trailblazer::Activity::TaskBuilder::Task user_proc=log_validation_error>
       {Trailblazer::Activity::Right} => #<End/:success>
      #<Trailblazer::Activity::TaskBuilder::Task user_proc=log_validation_error>
       {Trailblazer::Activity::Left} => #<End/:validation_error>
       {Trailblazer::Activity::Right} => #<End/:validation_error>
      #<End/:success>
      
      #<End/:validation_error>
      
      #<End/:failure>
      

      Now attempt to do it with Path... Does the Path() have an ID we can reference? Or maybe we just keep a reference to the object and use it directly in 2 different places?

      class Example::ValidationErrorTrack::VPathHelper1 < Trailblazer::Activity::Railway
         validation_error_path = Path(end_id: "End.validation_error", end_task: End(:validation_error)) do
          step :log_validation_error
        end
        step :validate_model, Output(:failure) => validation_error_path
        step :save,           Output(:failure) => validation_error_path
      end
      
      o=Example::ValidationErrorTrack::VPathHelper1; puts Trailblazer::Developer.render o
      Reloading...
      
      #<Start/:default>
       {Trailblazer::Activity::Right} => #<Trailblazer::Activity::TaskBuilder::Task user_proc=validate_model>
      #<Trailblazer::Activity::TaskBuilder::Task user_proc=validate_model>
       {Trailblazer::Activity::Left} => #<Trailblazer::Activity::TaskBuilder::Task user_proc=log_validation_error>
       {Trailblazer::Activity::Right} => #<Trailblazer::Activity::TaskBuilder::Task user_proc=save>
      #<Trailblazer::Activity::TaskBuilder::Task user_proc=log_validation_error>
       {Trailblazer::Activity::Right} => #<End/:validation_error>
      #<Trailblazer::Activity::TaskBuilder::Task user_proc=save>
       {Trailblazer::Activity::Left} => #<Trailblazer::Activity::TaskBuilder::Task user_proc=log_validation_error>
       {Trailblazer::Activity::Right} => #<End/:success>
      #<End/:success>
      
      #<End/:validation_error>
      
      #<End/:failure>
      

      It's just too bad that:

      • there's not a Railway helper in case you want multiple outputs, though we could probably create one pretty easily using Path as our template
      • we can't "inline" a separate Railway acitivity (Subprocess "nests" it rather than "inlines")
    2. step :direct_debit

      I don't think we would/should really want to make this the "success" (Right) path and :credit_card be the "failure" (Left) track.

      Maybe it's okay to repurpose Left and Right for something other than failure/success ... but only if we can actually change the default semantic of those signals/outputs. Is that possible? Maybe there's a way to override or delete the default outputs?

    3. While you could nest an activity into another manually, the Subprocess macro will come in handy.
    4. The macro automatically wires all of Validate’s ends to the known counter-part tracks.
    1. Have you ever felt like a framework was getting in the way instead of helping you go faster? Maybe you’re stuck on some simple task that would be easy to do manually, but your framework is making you jump through configuration hoops. I end up getting lost in a sea of documentation (or no documentation), and the search for that one magical config key takes just a tad bit too long. It’s a productivity sink, and worse than the time delay it adds to my frustration throughout the day.
    1. found that using only the Pascal-provided control structures, the correct solution was given by only 20% of the subjects, while no subject wrote incorrect code for this problem if allowed to write a return from the middle of a loop.
    2. That such minimalism is possible does not mean that it is necessarily desirable
    1. provide interfaces so you don’t have to think about them

      Question to myself: Is not having to think about it actually a good goal to have? Is it at odds with making intentional/well-considered decisions?  Obviously there are still many of interesting decisions to make even when using a framework that provides conventions and standardization and makes some decisions for you...

    2. You’re allowed to blame us for a terrible developer experience in Trailblazer 2.0. It’s been quite painful to find out which step caused an exception. However, don’t look back in anger! We’ve spent a lot of time on working out a beautiful way for both tracing and debugging Trailblazer activities in 2.1.
    1. In the short term you may have the stamina to get up earlier, stay later, and out-work the demands you face. But the inverse equation of shrinking resources and increasing demands will eventually catch up to you, and at that point how you involve others sets the ceiling of your leadership impact.
    1. Around 2 years ago I decided to end the experiment of “TRB PRO” as I felt I didn’t provide enough value to paying users. In the end, we had around 150 companies and individuals signed up, which was epic and a great funding source for more development.
    2. The new 2.1 version comes with a few necessary but reasonable changes in method signatures. As painful as that might sound to your Rails-spoiled ears, we preferred to fix design mistakes now before dragging them on forever.
    3. The new call API is much more consistent and takes away another thing we kept explaining to new users - an indicator for a flawed API.
    1. The bare bones operation without any Trailblazery is implemented in the trailblazer-operation gem and can be used without our stack.
    2. While Trailblazer offers you abstraction layers for all aspects of Ruby On Rails, it does not missionize you. Wherever you want, you may fall back to the "Rails Way" with fat models, monolithic controllers, global helpers, etc. This is not a bad thing, but allows you to step-wise introduce Trailblazer's encapsulation in your app without having to rewrite it.
    3. Only use what you like.
    4. you can pick which layers you want. Trailblazer doesn't impose technical implementations
    1. In order to support easy reuse, revision, remixing, and redistribution, the entire Hypothesis Help knowledge base by Hypothesis is dedicated to the public domain via CC CC0 1.0. While we appreciate attribution and links back to Hypothesis from anywhere these works are published, they are not required.
    1. ActiveModel::Form happened because the "tableless model" presented in RailsCast 219 wasn't as powerful as the "real deal" from RailsCast 193.
    1. 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.

      first sighting: meta-issue 

    2. The Java packages contain a lot of great code. But there are also parts of that code I'm sure the authors are embarrassed to admit they wrote.
    3. This article explains why you shouldn't use getters and setters (and when you can use them) and suggests a design methodology that will help you break out of the getter/setter mentality.
    1. If you think you’ve conveyed something but the other person hears something completely different, is that their fault or yours? 
    2. From my perspective the onus is on you to consider not just the words coming out of your mouth, but how they are received.
    3. Everyone has their own background and context that they overlay on top of what they hear. It’s our jobs as communicators to consider that perspective and to adjust the way we communicate accordingly. If we do, we stand a better chance of persuading them to agree with our point of view.
    1. People often hear what they think should be said, not the words that are actually spoken. This comes from the tendency of people to think faster than they talk. A listener makes assumptions about what they expect because their minds race ahead. This can be especially problematic when you misinterpret what your boss said. 
    1. that's a point, but I would say the opposite, when entering credit card data I would rathre prefer to be entirely in the Verified By Visa (Paypal) webpage (with the url easily visible in the address bar) rather that entring my credit card data in an iframe of someone's website.
  3. Jan 2021
    1. This is open-source. You can always fork and maintain that fork yourself if you feel that's warranted. That's how this project started in the first place, so I know the feeling.
    1. Bordering an element with a single repeating image is something that seems like it should be easy with a property called border-image, but the process for actually doing that is somewhat counter-intuitive. Let’s say, for example, that you want to border an element with a repeating heart icon. You can’t do that with a image of a single heart. Instead, you have to make an image of a “frame” of hearts arranged as you’d like them to appear in the border, then slice that image. <img sizes="(min-width: 735px) 864px, 96vw" src='https://i2.wp.com/css-tricks.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/enlarged-border-image-slice.png' alt='' data-recalc-dims="1" />Eight hearts in a “frame” image, enlarged to show detail. The red lines indicate slices. If you think that sounds preposterous, you’re in good company. There was a lengthy discussion of the subject on Eric Myer’s blog a few years ago where many frontend development greats weighed in.
    1. Great, I can use vw to scale text so it doesn't look puny on a desktop! Perfect... Oh. Huh, now the text is too small to read when viewed on a phone. Okay, well I can just use "max(x,y)" to make sure it doesn't get shrunk beyond a minimum size. Perfect... Oh. Hmm. Looks like "max" isn't supported properly by Chrome. Okay, well guess I'll just use "px" again.
    1. In other words, programs that send messages to other machines (or to other programs on the same machine) should conform completely to the specifications, but programs that receive messages should accept non-conformant input as long as the meaning is clear.
    2. be conservative in what you do, be liberal in what you accept from others
    1. Why? I wrote MagpieRSS out of a frustration with the limitations of existing solutions. In particular many of the existing PHP solutions seemed to: use a parser based on regular expressions, making for an inherently fragile solution only support early versions of RSS discard all the interesting information besides item title, description, and link. not build proper separation between parsing the RSS and displaying it.
    1. Progress is made of compromises, this implies that we have to consider not only disadvantages, but also the advantages. Advantages do very clearly outweigh disadvantages. This doesn’t mean it perfect, or that work shouldn’t continue to minimize and reduce the disadvantages, but just considering disadvantages is not the correct way.
    2. I’m not a dev either, so no Ubuntu fork, but I will perhaps be forced to look at Debian testing, without some advantages of Ubuntu - but now that Unity is gone (and I deeply regret it), gap would not be so huge anymore…
    3. If folks want to get together and create a snap-free remix, you are welcome to do so. Ubuntu thrives on such contribution and leadership by community members. Do be aware that you will be retreading territory that Ubuntu developers trod in 2010-14, and that you will encounter some of the same issues that led them to embrace snap-based solutions. Perhaps your solutions will be different. .debs are not perfect, snaps are not perfect. Each have advantages and disadvantages. Ubuntu tries to use the strengths of both.
  4. Dec 2020
    1. Better contribution workflow: We will be using GitHub’s contribution tools and features, essentially moving MDN from a Wiki model to a pull request (PR) model. This is so much better for contribution, allowing for intelligent linting, mass edits, and inclusion of MDN docs in whatever workflows you want to add it to (you can edit MDN source files directly in your favorite code editor).
  5. Nov 2020
    1. It would help greatly if you provided references for "articles online about what universal javascript is". But I think this is just too dependent on opinion.
    1. Many linguists believe that the natural language a person speaks affects how they think. Does the same concept apply to computer languages?
    1. The use of __proto__ is controversial and discouraged. It was never originally included in the ECMAScript language spec, but modern browsers implemented it anyway. Only recently was the __proto__ property standardized by the ECMAScript 2015 specification for compatibility with web browsers, so it will be supported into the future.
    1. We won’t go into all the details that make an application a PWA, because it all sort of depends on who you ask.
    1. We are working to develop better communication within TC39 and with the broader JavaScript community so that this sort of problem can be corrected sooner in the future.
    1. This is Sass based, and therefore doesn't require Svelte components

      Just because we could make Svelte wrapper components for each Material typography [thing], doesn't mean we should.

      Compare:

      • material-ui [react] did make wrapper components for typography.

        • But why did they? Is there a technical reason why they couldn't just do what svelte-material-ui did (as in, something technical that Svelte empowers/allows?), or did they just not consider it?
      • svelte-material-ui did not.

        • And they were probably wise to not do so. Just reuse the existing work from the Material team so that there's less work for you to keep in sync and less chance of divergence.
  6. Oct 2020
    1. Don’t fetch stuff unless you actually need it Judging from the response to our 503 errors, much of the software requesting DTDs and schemata from our site doesn’t even need them in the first place, so requesting them just wastes bandwidth and slows down the application. If you don’t need it, don’t fetch it!
    1. There are other features you *could* actually polyfill, such as Array.of, Number.isNaN or Object.assign, because those don’t introduce syntax changes to the language – except that you shouldn’t.
    1. Polyfills are naughty as they patch native APIs, while ponyfills are pure and don't affect the environment.
    2. How are ponyfills better than polyfills? A polyfill is code that adds missing functionality by monkey patching an API. Unfortunately, it usually globally patches built-ins, which affects all code running in the environment. This is especially problematic when a polyfill is not fully spec compliant (which in some cases is impossible), as it could cause very hard to debug bugs and inconsistencies. Or when the spec for a new feature changes and your code depends on behavior that a module somewhere else in the dependency tree polyfills differently. In general, you should not modify API's you don't own.
  7. Sep 2020
    1. It is showed as an error, but it is a warning as it doesn't break anything. I hate having warning/error in my console not coming from me. It is not justified as it's not bad practice imho
    1. You probably want initialValue! ⚠️ The value of the field upon creation. This value is only needed if you want your field be dirty upon creation (i.e. for its value to be different from its initial value).
    1. Basically, the idea is that a train tried to start with the caboose brakes stuck on. After releasing the caboose, the train still could not start. The problem was that when the train attempted to start with the caboose brake on, it stretched all the inter-car couplings so that the whole train was just like one big car. At this point, the friction from the engine train wheels was not enough to get the whole thing going. Instead, you need to just get one car moving at a time - this is why there is space between the couplings.
    1. And to illustrate another way actions are helpful, take your above example and put the button into a {{#each}}. It gets more complicated.
    2. I'm just pushing on the "is this really a good idea" front
    3. Another problem I ran into was knowing when an element is removed. I had to add a MutationObserver on the current tooltip target so if it gets removed by Svelte while the tooltip is visible (e.g. if a click moves to another route) the tooltip isn't left hanging around on the screen. No mouseleave/mouseout events are dispatched on elements that are removed.

      First sighting: MutationObserver

    1. I’ve seen some version of this conversation happen more times than I can remember. And someone will always say ‘it’s because you’re too used to thinking in the old way, you just need to start thinking in hooks’.

      But after seeing a lot of really bad hooks code, I’m starting to think it’s not that simple — that there’s something deeper going on.

    1. I think this is such a fantastic viewpoint. Sometimes in order to reach our overall goal, we have to "cast down our bucket" in compromise or be the first to extend the olive branch. I like that he used this same analogy for the white southerners as well. We all have to compromise to some degree to reach progress.

    1. Now I know what you're thinking, "this is an atrocity, what a horrible mess!" and you're right, it's kind of ugly. In fact it's just about impossible to think this is a good idea the first time you see it — you have to actually try it.
  8. Jul 2020
  9. Jun 2020
    1. If you've found a problem in Ruby on Rails which is not a security risk, do a search on GitHub under Issues in case it has already been reported. If you are unable to find any open GitHub issues addressing the problem you found, your next step will be to open a new one.
  10. May 2020
  11. www.darpa.mil