Please do not directly email any Sidekiq committers with questions or problems. A community is best served when discussions are held in public.

That said, I wish more people would talk both sides. Yes, every dependency has a cost. BUT the alternatives aren't cost free either. For all the ranting against micropackages, I'm not seeing a good pro/con discussion.

Here's the last issue where source maps were discussed before the beta release.

So, whenever you hear the medieval argument “Trailblazer is just a nasty DSL!”, forgive your opponent, you now know better. The entire framework is based on small, clean Ruby structures that can be executed programmatically.

so again, what, precisely, is false? Do you deny that a Control+C goes to the foreground process group?

The exact form of the platform is yet to be finalized, and we want to involve you, the community, in helping to provide ideas and test the new contribution workflow!

In Rust, we use the "No New Rationale" rule, which says that the decision to merge (or not merge) an RFC is based only on rationale that was presented and debated in public. This avoids accidents where the community feels blindsided by a decision.

I'd like to go with an RFC-based governance model (similar to Rust, Ember or Swift) that looks something like this: new features go through a public RFC that describes the motivation for the change, a detailed implementation description, a description on how to document or teach the change (for kpm, that would roughly be focused around how it affected the usual workflows), any drawbacks or alternatives, and any open questions that should be addressed before merging. the change is discussed until all of the relevant arguments have been debated and the arguments are starting to become repetitive (they "reach a steady state") the RFC goes into "final comment period", allowing people who weren't paying close attention to every proposal to have a chance to weigh in with new arguments. assuming no new arguments are presented, the RFC is merged by consensus of the core team and the feature is implemented. All changes, regardless of their source, go through this process, giving active community members who aren't on the core team an opportunity to participate directly in the future direction of the project. (both because of proposals they submit and ones from the core team that they contribute to)

And as an aside, I’m definitely in favor of more debates than sessions in future conferences, since we actually learn more by hearing multiple viewpoints.

Un planteamiento semejante impulsa a tener en cuenta la posibilidad de consecuencias imprevistas, a hacer explí-citos los aspectos normativos que se esconden en las decisiones técnicas, a reconocer la necesidad de puntos de vista plurales y aprendizaje colectivo

Curiosity Is as Important as Intelligence

Although IQ is hard to coach, EQ and CQ can be developed.

In contemporary debates, gun control advocates often respond to assertion of second amendment individual rights to gun ownership by emphasizing the amendment’s reference to a “well regulated militia.”

A person with oppositional conversational style is a person who, in conversation, disagrees with and corrects whatever you say. He or she may do this in a friendly way, or a belligerent way, but this person frames remarks in opposition to whatever you venture.

Clinton says Trump has called the election ‘rigged’, while Trump says he won’t necessarily accept the election results All available evidence shows that in-person voter fraud is exceedingly rare: you are more likely to be struck by lightning in the next year (a one in 1,042,000 chance, according to Noaa) than to find a case of voter fraud by impersonation (31 possible cases in more than a billion ballots cast from 2000 to 2014, according to a study by Loyola Law School). The man who cried rigged: the problem with Trump’s election claims Whenever Donald Trump is cornered, he accuses his opponents of fighting dirty. This time, he might be right to say there’s voter fraud – but for the wrong reasons Read more Voter fraud would have to happen on an enormous scale to sway elections, because the electoral college system decentralizes authority: each of the 50 states has its own rules and local officials, not federal ones, run the polls and count the ballots. This complexity makes the notion of a “rigged” national election, at least in the US, logistically daunting to the point of practical impossibility. Thirty-one states have Republican governors, including the swing states of Florida, North Carolina, Iowa, Nevada and Ohio; Pennsylvania only elected a Democratic governor in 2015. Polls show Trump losing even in some states where governors have strongly supported him. In Maine, for instance, the Real Clear Politics average shows him down five points. About 75% of the ballots cast in federal elections have paper backups, and most electronic voting machines are not connected to the internet – though they have other flaws and may be vulnerable to tampering. But voter fraud to swing a major election, whether by tampering, buying votes or official wrongdoing, would quickly attract attention by its necessarily large scale. AdvertisementIf Trump loses the presidential election, it will be because American voters do not want him in the White House, not because of a conspiracy involving Republicans and Democrats alike at state and city levels around the nation – a conspiracy for which Trump has provided no evidence.

his has certainly been the tendency in rhetoric and composition, whose primary debate has been between two opposing methods for simplifying the complexity of writ ing.

Twitter is an "argument machine"

For instance, if a certain individual owns the idea for airplanes, there are always ideas for gliders, helicopters, and devices yet unknown for other individuals to own. On the other hand, each idea is unique, so the taking of any idea as private property leaves none of that idea for others (Locke, 1690, Chap. V, Sect. 27). The first perspective would assert that there are always other ideas, while the second perspective would assert that ideas build upon each other, and that just because ideas are similar in one respect does not mean they are similar in other respects. Under the first perspective, the taking of intelle ctual property passes the Lockean Proviso, and under the second perspective, it fails.

This is understatement to be sure, but the debate has been principally between two theories: a utilitarian policy theory, and a rights - based , non - utilitarian property theory (Long, 1995, n.pag.) .

est bien présente

But even those accomplishments could be thwarted by a basic political calculation: Many Republicans believe they are getting such good traction from their attacks on President Obama’s stumbling health care law that they feel less compelled to produce results. Any public fight over legislative compromises could take away from the focus Republicans have kept on the health care law.

I am one of those who are very willing to be refuted if I say anything which is not true, and very willing to refute any one else who says what is not true, and quite as ready to be refuted as to refute; for I hold that this is the greater gain of the two, just as the gain is greater of being cured of a very great evil than of curing another. For I imagine that there is no evil which a man can endure so great as an erroneous opinion about the matters of which we are speaking; and if you claim to be one of my sort, let us have the discussion out, but if you would rather have done, no matter;—let us make an end of it.

SOCRATES: And will you continue to ask and answer questions, Gorgias, as we are at present doing, and reserve for another occasion the longer mode of speech which Polus was attempting? Will you keep your promise, and answer shortly the questions which are asked of you?