It is now possible (but not easy) for anyone who is determined enough to create a xanadoc, and send it to others, who may open and use it.  (Note that the World Wide Web was available for several years before the Mosaic editor made it easy for the public.)

It does provide an answer. The issue is that the Google form validates that the user has input a valid looking URL. So he needs to input an arbitrary, but valid URL, and then add that to /etc/hosts so his browser will resolve it to the address of his devserver. The question and answer are both fine as is and don't require any critique or clarification.

However, the cookie containing the CSRF-TOKEN is only used by the client to set the X-XSRF-TOKEN header. So passing a compromised CSRF-TOKEN cookie to the Rails app won't have any negative effect.

“Who cares? Let’s just go with the style-guide” — to which my response is that caring about the details is in the heart of much of our doings. Yes, this is not a major issue; def self.method is not even a code smell. Actually, that whole debate is on the verge of being incidental. Yet the learning process and the gained knowledge involved in understanding each choice is alone worth the discussion. Furthermore, I believe that the class << self notation echoes a better, more stable understanding of Ruby and Object Orientation in Ruby. Lastly, remember that style-guides may change or be altered (carefully, though!).

But there ARE invincibility frames. 0.5 seconds.

I wanted to examine this criticism because I don't agree with it.

Trailblazer extends the conventional MVC stack in Rails. Keep in mind that adding layers doesn't necessarily mean adding more code and complexity. The opposite is the case: Controller, view and model become lean endpoints for HTTP, rendering and persistence. Redundant code gets eliminated by putting very little application code into the right layer.

Trailblazer is no "complex web of objects and indirection". It solves many problems that have been around for years with a cleanly layered architecture.

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

what, pray tell, is false in my examples? I am curious, so please be precise.

I have checked the following close stackoverflow sources : Relation passed to #or must be structurally compatible. Incompatible values: [:references]

And for the downvoters.... bypassing CORS is exactly what is shown for those simply learning the front end. https://codecraft.tv/courses/angular/http/http-with-promises/

I've worked at Facebook and Google, and I know who can see the messages you send over their platforms. It's scary.

Please give up the ghost - The Apache Foundation is one of the stalwart defenders of the FOSS community, but this dichotomy is destructive for everyone.