Please correct me if anything in there is incorrect!

In the context of git, the word "master" is not used in the same way as "master/slave". I've never known about branches referred to as "slaves" or anything similar. On existing projects, consider the global effort to change from origin/master to origin/main. The cost of being different than git convention and every book, tutorial, and blog post. Is the cost of change and being different worth it? PS. My 3 projects were using your lib and got broken thanks to the renaming. PS. PS. I'm glad I never got a master's degree in college!

the benefits of GitHub renaming the master branch to main far outweigh any temporary stumbling blocks. He said the change is part of a broader internal initiative to add inclusive language to the company's systems. His team is also replacing whitelist and blacklist with allowlist and blocklist.

"Both Conservancy and the Git project are aware that the initial branch name, 'master,' is offensive to some people and we empathize with those hurt by the use of that term," said the Software Freedom Conservancy.

I’m going to add the API Server as an actor to my first test sequence to give some granularity as to what I’m actually testing.

For features like websocket interactions, a single full-stack smoke test is almost essential to confirm that things are going as planned, even if the individual parts of the interaction are also covered by unit tests.

How to test at the correct level?

As many things in life, deciding what to test at each level of testing is a trade-off:

What's the "correct" semantic way to specify image height and width? In CSS... width:15px; or inline... <img width="15" ?

Microlibraries are easier to understand, develop and test. They make it easier for new people to get involved and contribute. They reduce the distinction between a “core module” and a “plugin”, and increase the pace of development in D3 features.

Semantically this is wrong.

Usually when people are talking about code being semantically correct, they're referring to the code that accurately describes something.

HTML elements have meaning. "Semantically correct" means that your elements mean what they are supposed to.

Semantically correct usage of elements means that you use them for what they are meant to be used for.

It means that you're calling something what it actually is.

The classic example is that if something is a table, it should contain rows and columns of data. To use that for layout is semantically incorrect - you're saying "this is a table" when it's not.

Fits the ideal behind HTML HTML stands for "HyperText Markup Language"; its purpose is to mark up, or label, your content. The more accurately you mark it up, the better. New elements are being introduced in HTML5 to more accurately label common web page parts, such as headers and footers.

You don’t need to do any tricky cursor stuff, because it’s all semantically wired up already.

always use real <label for="correct_input"> elements. Just that alone is a UX consideration all too many forms fail on

now that I realize how easy it is to just manually include this in my app: <%= javascript_include_tag 'xray', nonce: true if Rails.env.development? %> I regret even wasting my time getting it to automatically look for and add a nonce to the auto-injected xray.js script

Allowlist, not whitelist. Blocklist, not blacklist. Goodbye, wtf. Microsoft scans Chromium code, lops off offensive words

a suggestion by Microsoft to “cleanup of potentially offensive terms in codebase” aims to rid the software blueprints of language such as whitelist (change to allowlist), blacklist (change to blocklist), “offensive terms using ‘wtf’ as protocol messages,” and other infelicities.

In May, Microsoft announced AI features in Word that, among other features, will emit “advice on more concise and inclusive language such as ‘police officer’ instead of ‘policeman.’"

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.

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.

This is not correct. Or at least, it is not entirely correct.

The code is far simpler and easier to understand/verify

text-decoration is more 'correct' because it is the 'real' CSS property meant for underlining text.

Logistically speaking, I suppose "depender" and "dependee" would be more accurate, though neither of those are proper english words as far as I know.

In the context of software engineering, I've always used "dependent" and "dependee".

virtual-dom exposes a set of objects designed for representing DOM nodes. A "Document Object Model Model" might seem like a strange term, but it is exactly that. It's a native JavaScript tree structure that represents a native DOM node tree.

Move svelte into dependencies, as it was accidentally stuck in peerDependencies

Can't upvote this enough. It is highly irritating to see language destroyed (and we wonder why kids bastardize the language..).

my point is that using "into" in such a case is just as incorrect as using "inas" would be. The fact that people make mistakes doesn't change this.

It is also good practice to make sure that your load testing is functionally correct. Both the performance and functional goals can be codified using thresholds and checks (like asserts).

These discussions can be fraught with power dynamics, resulting in controversial issues appearing unbalanced as more powerful authors block alternative viewpoints.

yo

The foundation of good style is correctness of language, which falls under five heads. (1) First, the proper use of connecting words, and the arrangement of them in the natural sequence which some of them require. For instance, the connective "men" (e.g. ego men) requires the correlative "de" (e.g. o de). The answering word must be brought in before the first has been forgotten, and not be widely separated from it; nor, except in the few cases where this is appropriate, is another connective to be introduced before the one required. Consider the sentence, "But as soon as he told me (for Cleon had come begging and praying), took them along and set out." In this sentence many connecting words are inserted in front of the one required to complete the sense; and if there is a long interval before "set out," the result is obscurity. One merit, then, of good style lies in the right use of connecting words. (2) The second lies in calling things by their own special names and not by vague general ones. (3) The third is to avoid ambiguities; unless, indeed, you definitely desire to be ambiguous, as those do who have nothing to say but are pretending to mean something. Such people are apt to put that sort of thing into verse.