the real issues are Insidious they're 00:22:00 underground they're down in our our Baseline premises of understanding what life is and what it means

(It seems reasonable to assume users are often expected to occasionally adapt answers rather than expect to use them verbatim.)

The expansion of that thought is that many of the investment options associated with the wealthy are bad actually. Part of it is that we confuse how the wealthy invest after they’ve become wealthy with how they became wealthy. Nick Maguilli has written convincingly about thisI raise this point because there seems to be an obsession with the wealthy and how they invest their money as if their allocation decisions are what created their wealth. Of course, for some wealthy individuals this is true. Warren Buffett got rich based on how he invested his money. But many other wealthy people didn’t. They got rich as business owners or doctors or lawyers (or something else) and have since allocated their wealth to private equity and hedge funds. Keep this in mind before making any changes to your portfolio.But also: these hedge funds just aren’t that great!

Within Western philosophy, I find Husserl's epoche to be a useful tool for making systematic explorations of tacit assumptions underlying our everyday view of the world

his suggests that men tend to use one another’s sexual orientation as a rough proxy for their ability to contribute to aggressive male coalitions rather than valuing the orientation in itself.

the neo-Darwinists were practically driven to their conclusions by their initial assumption: that science demands a rational explanation, that this means attributing rational motives to all behavior, and that a truly rational motivation can only be one that, if observed in humans, would normally be described as selfishness or greed.

At its most tame, Ancient Apocalypse simply reinforces a deeply conservative understanding of human history. Conservative, yes, because despite Hancock’s claim to challenge every orthodoxy going, his ideas—like those of Ignatius Loyola Donnelly, Erich von Däniken, and other so-called “pseudo-archaeologists”—rest on a baseline assumption that technology should always be advancing in linear fashion, from primitive simplicity to modern complexity.

This site is making use of some basic analytics cookies so I can hopefully learn something from of the metrics. By using the site you are totally fine with that.

once in a while you get a cop out at kerpow is out of that world it's actually an escape from that world

It's a great way to test various limits. When you think about this even more, it's a little mind-bending, as we're trying to impose a global clock ("who is the most up to date") on a system that inherently doesn't have a global clock. When we scale time down to nanoseconds, this affects us in the real world of today: a light-nanosecond is not very far.

When we have our git rev-parse examine our Git repository to view our origin/HEAD, what we see is whatever we have stored in this origin/HEAD. That need not match what is in their HEAD at this time. It might match! It might not.

There are many questions we can ask and answer about branch names. Each one is specific to one particular repository because all branch names are local to that particular repository. Any changes anyone makes in that repository affect only that one repository, at least at the time they make them.

It is a good thing that you wrote up your assumptions, this helps greatly with explanations. To look at each:

if the process of seeing differently is the process of first and foremost having awareness of the fact that everything you do has an assumption 00:00:14 figure out what those are and by the way the best person to reveal your own assumptions to you is not yourself it's usually someone else hence the power of diversity the importance of diversity 00:00:26 because not only does that diversity reveal your own assumptions to you but it can also complexify your assumptions right because we know from complex systems theory that the best solution is most likely to 00:00:40 exist within a complex search space not a simple search space simply because of statistics right so whereas a simple search space is more adaptable it's more easily to adapt it's 00:00:52 less likely to contain the best solution so what we really want is a diversity of possibilities a diversity of assumptions which diverse groups for instance enable

I thought I knew how they worked, but it looks I was wrong and made two false assumptions: Thought that typeof of object literals are inferred to have (string | number) index signature Thought that mapped types over union of string literals is a way to declare a limited set of string index signatures That's how it looked to me from the example in Typescript Deep Dive

their popularity may be aresult of cumulative advantage or the tendency to evoke anemotional response

With experience you would get to have an idea about how knowledgeable the customer was just by talking to them for a few seconds, but you have to be careful not to assume things.

Security of this technique is based on the assumption that only JavaScript running on the client side of an HTTPS connection to the server that initially set the cookie will be able to read the cookie's value.

Requirement #2 contains an unwarranted assumption. The body needs to flow not around the sidebar, but around the sidebar's position. That may seem like splitting hairs, but it isn't -- because what if there were something floated where we want to put the sidebar? The body would flow around that space. If we could put the sidebar in that same location, we'd have a solution.

The Model macro literally does what our model! step did.

on your own Joomla website.

Copy these 5 resources to a directory named 'magpierss' in the same directory as your PHP script.

I'm still calling this v1.00 as this is what will be included in the first print run.

I wonder if it's worth archiving the repository (while leaving the site running) with a message that we're transitioning the content to MDN (so folks don't get the wrong idea and a bad experience when filing issues).

Some people try to use && and || as a shortcut syntax for if ... then ... else ... fi, perhaps because they think they are being clever.

The sooner you invalidate that assumption, the faster you can pivot toward the right customer and problem

Final Form makes the assumption that your validation functions are "pure" or "idempotent", i.e. will always return the same result when given the same values. This is why it doesn't run the synchronous validation again (just to double check) before allowing the submission: because it's already stored the results of the last time it ran it.

Library author here. I'm always fascinated by new ways people can invalidate my assumptions. I mean that in a sincerely positive way, as it results in learning.

By using an outside timer, you've invalidated that assumption.

These days, instead of making assumptions, I ask questions. Lots of them.

The most dangerous kind of assumption is the one we don’t know we have. In Rumsfeldian, that’s an “Unknown unknown.”

is a popularly held but false belief about the origin or derivation of a specific word

However, this would lead to further divergence. Tooling that is built around the assumptions imposed by template literals wouldn't work. It would undermine the meaning of template literals. It would be necessary to define how JSX behaves within the rest of the ECMAScript grammar within the template literal anyway.

there is an underlying assumption in many Agile methods that customers and users have done their homework

I understand that I could use some third party memoization tool on top of the Svelte’s comparator, but my point here is — there is no magic pill, optimizations “out of the box” often turn out to have limitations.

This is a very dangerous practice as each optimization means making assumptions. If you are compressing an image you make an assumption that some payload can be cut out without seriously affecting the quality, if you are adding a cache to your backend you assume that the API will return same results. A correct assumption allows you to spare resources. A false assumption introduces a bug in your app. That’s why optimizations should be done consciously.

To fix our Svelte version you might think we could use beforeUpdate or afterUpdate, but these lifecycle functions are related to the DOM being updated, not to prop updates. We only want to rerun our fetching when the album prop is changed.

It's hard to fight against a tide of "experts" and preset assumptions. Sometimes it does take tearing things down a little bit.

People assume any advocacy for things they're not personally stoked about is "shilling".

In a rare show of solidarity, both British English and American English spell advertise with an s in all forms.

As an act of defiance, I will only use advertize. I’ve added the word to my spell check. As an American, it makes sense for me to use this spelling since other -ise words use the more phonetic -ize suffix.

In other places, such as Great Britain and Canada, labelled is a more common spelling than labeled.

as well as those of the country your site targets

While Web site is still doing well in the U.S., it is all but dead in the U.K. Current Google News searches limited to U.K. publications find only about one instance of Web site (or web site) for every thousand instances of website. The ratio is similar in Australian and New Zealand publications. In Canada, the ratio is somewhere in the middle—about 20 to one in favor of the one-word form.

Exceptions are easily found, however, especially in American sources, where Web site (or web site, without the capital w) appears about once for every six instances of website. This is likely due to the influence of the New York Times, which is notoriously conservative with tech terms. The Times still uses Web site, and many American publications follow suit. Yet even those that often use Web site in their more closely edited sections tend to allow website in their blogs and other web-only sections.

Other languages, German for example, are notorious for very long compunds like this and this, that are made up and written as one word directly. Perhaps the way your native language deals with compounds explains your (or other authors') personal preference and sense of "right"?

"Hey, folks — just wanted to let y'all know that one of the 500 locks on one of your 500 doors is broken. Not gonna tell you which one though. Hope that helps!"

Now that we’re making breakthroughs in artificial intelligence, there’s a deeply cemented belief that the human brain works as a deterministic, mathematical process that can be replicated exactly by a Turing machine.

Robots are currently suffering extreme discrimination due to a few false assumptions, mainly that they’re distinctly separate actors from humans. My point of view is that robots and humans often need to behave in the same way, so it’s a fruitless and pointless endeavour to try distinguishing them.

The reasoning is that saying "ES7 Decorators" assumes that Decorators is expected to be in ES7. I mentioned this in my last post regarding compiling node_modules, but being in a particular Stage doesn't guarantee much: a proposal can stall, move backward, or get removed entirely.

Fourth, even when government negotiates and writes a good contract it often does not secure the outcomes it should as a result of weak contract management. Contract managers must have the capabilities and information they need to ensure good performance.3

First, government did not always engage with the market early in running procurements or establish a sufficient understanding on both sides about the service that were being outsourced. This often led to problems over the lifetime of a contract, such as disputes and cost overruns.Second, an excessive focus on the lowest price and an insufficient assessment of quality in selecting bids undermined many contracts. While outsourcing can reduce costs, government must balance this against the minimum level of quality it needs in a service. Too often, it has outsourced services in pursuit of unrealistic savings and without a realistic expectation that companies would deliver efficiencies.Third, large contracts have failed when government has transferred risks that suppliers have no control over and cannot manage, rather than those which suppliers can price and manage better than government. Government should also not think that it has outsourced risks that will revert to it if a supplier fails – as the provision of public services will always do.

It must also understand why different outsourcing projects succeed or fail. The Institute for Government has previously showed that there are several conditions that make outsourcing more likely to succeed.2 Above all, these include: •the existence of a competitive market of high-quality suppliers•the ease of measuring the value added by the provider •the service not being so integral to the nature of government as to make outsourcing inappropriate.*

How much that is hidden may still reside in a person, or how much may still reside hidden! How inventive is hidden inwardness in hiding itself and in deceiving or evading others, the hidden inwardness that preferred that no one would suspect its existence, modestly afraid of being seen and mortally afraid of being entirely disclosed! Is it not so that the one person never completely understands the other? But if he does not understand him completely, then of course it is always possible that the most indisputable thing could still have a completely different explanation that would, note well, be the true explanation, since an assumption can indeed explain a great number of instances very well and thereby confirm its truth and yet show itself to be untrue as soon as the instance comes along that it cannot explain-and it would indeed be possible that this instance or this somewhat more precise specification could come even at the last moment. Therefore all calm and, in the intellectual sense, dispassionate observers, who eminently know how to delve searchingly and penetratingly into the inner being, these very people judge with such infinite caution or refrain from it entirely because, enriched by observation, they have a developed conception of the enigmatic world of the hidden, and because as observers they have learned to rule over their passions. Only superficial, impetuous passionate people, who do not understand themselves and for that reason naturally are unaware that they do not know others, judge precipitously. Those with insight, those who know never do this. Soren Kierkegaard, Works of Love, (1847) Hong 1995 p. 228-229

There are two tests that you can run that are applicable when the assumption of homogeneity of variances has been violated: (1) Welch or (2) Brown and Forsythe test. Alternatively, you could run a Kruskal-Wallis H Test. For most situations it has been shown that the Welch test is best. Both the Welch and Brown and Forsythe tests are available in SPSS Statistics (see our One-way ANOVA using SPSS Statistics guide).

This, of course, leaves us none the wiser as to how to model velocity, as the equation of exchange is nothing more than an identity. MV=PQ just says that the money flow of expenditures is equal to the market value of what those expenditures buy, which is true by definition. The left and right sides are two ways of saying the same thing; it’s a form of double-entry accounting where each transaction is simultaneously recorded on both sides of the equation. Whether an effect should be recorded in M, V, P, or Q is, ultimately, arbitrary. To transform the identity into a tool with predictive potency, we need to make a series of assumptions about each of the variables. For example, monetarists assume M is determined exogenously, V is constant, and Q is independent of M and use the equation to demonstrate how increases in the money supply increase P (i.e. cause inflation).

Unfortunately, many focus on skills rather than literacies.

Little consideration is given to the diversity of how these supposed “digital natives” experience technology

Golden Age economics ended. Golden Age assumptions did not. For 30 wonderful years, we had been unusually flush, and we got used to it, re-designing our institutions to assume unending increases in subsidized demand. This did not happen. The year it started not happening was 1975.