Our findings reveal a phenomenon of constraint decay: as structural requirements accumulate, agent performance exhibits a substantial decline.

The urgent argument for turning any company into a software company is the growing availability of data, both inside and outside the enterprise. Specifically, the implications of so-called “big data”—the aggregation and analysis of massive data sets, especially mobile

Using these attributes will show validation errors, or limit what the user can enter into an <input>.

If you would like to make “empty” include values that consist of spaces only, you can add the attribute pattern=.*\S.*.

Currently, there is no way to style those little validation tooltips.

Website: <input type="url" name="website" required pattern="https?://.+"> Now our input box will only accept text starting with http:// or https:// and at least one additional character

var applicationForm = document.getElementById("applicationForm"); if (applicationForm.checkValidity()) { applicationForm.submit(); } else { applicationForm.reportValidity(); }

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.

These all come from the HTML Standard.

setCustomValidity

Note that we added HTML validation with specifying the types of the field (email and password). This allows the browser to validate the input.

Constraints

The bindings are two-way because any HTML5 contraint validation errors will be added to the Final Form state, and any field-level validation errors from Final Form will be set into the HTML5 validity.customError state.

Databases must always be opened with the same flags once created.

but only ever one write transaction

there must not be two concurrent transactions opening the same database

Hans Moravec argued in 1976 that computers were still millions of times too weak to exhibit intelligence. He suggested an analogy: artificial intelligence requires computer power in the same way that aircraft require horsepower. Below a certain threshold, it's impossible, but, as power increases, eventually it could become easy.[79] With regard to computer vision, Moravec estimated that simply matching the edge and motion detection capabilities of human retina in real time would require a general-purpose computer capable of 109 operations/second (1000 MIPS).[80] As of 2011, practical computer vision applications require 10,000 to 1,000,000 MIPS. By comparison, the fastest supercomputer in 1976, Cray-1 (retailing at $5 million to $8 million), was only capable of around 80 to 130 MIPS, and a typical desktop computer at the time achieved less than 1 MIPS.

"You usually think of an argument as a serial sequence of steps of reason, beginning with known facts, assumptions, etc., and progressing toward a conclusion. Well, we do have to think through these steps serially, and we usually do list the steps serially when we write them out because that is pretty much the way our papers and books have to present them—they are pretty limiting in the symbol structuring they enable us to use. Have you even seen a 'scrambled-text' programmed instruction book? That is an interesting example of a deviation from straight serial presentation of steps.3b6b "Conceptually speaking, however, an argument is not a serial affair. It is sequential, I grant you, because some statements have to follow others, but this doesn't imply that its nature is necessarily serial. We usually string Statement B after Statement A, with Statements C, D, E, F, and so on following in that order—this is a serial structuring of our symbols. Perhaps each statement logically followed from all those which preceded it on the serial list, and if so, then the conceptual structuring would also be serial in nature, and it would be nicely matched for us by the symbol structuring.3b6c "But a more typical case might find A to be an independent statement, B dependent upon A, C and D independent, E depending upon D and B, E dependent upon C, and F dependent upon A, D, and E. See, sequential but not serial? A conceptual network but not a conceptual chain. The old paper and pencil methods of manipulating symbols just weren't very adaptable to making and using symbol structures to match the ways we make and use conceptual structures. With the new symbol-manipulating methods here, we have terrific flexibility for matching the two, and boy, it really pays off in the way you can tie into your work.3b6d This makes you recall dimly the generalizations you had heard previously about process structuring limiting symbol structuring, symbol structuring limiting concept structuring, and concept structuring limiting mental structuring.

During 1995, a decision was made to (officially) start licensing the Mac OS and Macintosh ROMs to 3rd party manufacturers who started producing Macintosh "clones". This was done in order to achieve deeper market penetration and extra revenue for the company. This decision lead to Apple having over a 10% market share until 1997 when Steve Jobs was re-hired as interim CEO to replace Gil Amelio. Jobs promptly found a loophole in the licensing contracts Apple had with the clone manufacturers and terminated the Macintosh OS licensing program, ending the Macintosh clone era. The result of this action was that Macintosh computer market share quickly fell from 10% to around 3%.

Let's make the example even easier. function convertDate<T extends string | undefined>(isoDate?: string): T { return undefined } 'undefined' is assignable to the constraint of type 'T' Means: What you return in the function (undefined), matches the constraints of your generic type parameter T (extends string | undefined). , but 'T' could be instantiated with a different subtype of constraint 'string | undefined'. Means: TypeScript does not consider that as safe. What if you defined your function like this at compile time: // expects string return type according to generics // but you return undefined in function body const res = convertDate<string>("2019-08-16T16:48:33Z") Then according to your signature, you expect the return type to be string. But at runtime that is not the case! This discrepancy that T can be instantiated with a different subtype (here string) than you return in the function (undefined) is expressed with the TypeScript error.

Both of the below are valid as far as T extends (...args: any[]) => any goes logFn((a, b) => a + b) logFn((a, b, c) => c) But if you refer back to the example I gave, the inner definition as: return (a, b) => fn(a, b); So option 2. will throw an error here, which is why typescript is warning you about it.

In the body of the function you have no control over the instantiation by the calling context, so we have to treat things of type T as opaque boxes and say you can't assign to it. A common mistake or misunderstanding was to constraint a type parameter and then assign to its constraint, for example: function f<T extends boolean>(x: T) { x = true; } f<false>(false); This is still incorrect because the constraint only restricts the upper bound, it does not tell you how precise T may really be.

P can't be assigned {}, since the Generic Type P can be a more defined (or restricted) type.

you can have a Type that is more specific than a boolean like this

The value 10 is assignable to the constraint of T, but it is not assignable to this particular instantiation of T. If there was no error I would passing 10 where 3 is expected!

Negative rates in theory mean the German government can borrow money from investors and get paid for doing so. But Berlin runs a budget surplus and has no desire to increase spending as other slower-growing European countries would like it to do. Olaf Scholz, Germany’s finance minister, has said recently the government doesn’t need to act as if it is in a crisis

system B, I think Terry called it? too structured?)