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

The false promise of your source code repository is that everything it contains is “good.” To complete your task, just find something that does something similar, copy, modify, and you’re done. Looking inside the same repository seems like a safety mechanism for quality but, in fact, there is no such guarantee.

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.

balloons

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

Half-freedom," as this sys- tem came to be called,

First, let's make it clear that NODE_ENV has no explicit relationship to RAILS_ENV. Setting one of the ENV variables will have no effect on the other.

Allowing port 80 doesn’t introduce a larger attack surface on your server, because requests on port 80 are generally served by the same software that runs on port 443.

as well as those of the country your site targets

While risking false positives, Bloom filters have a substantial space advantage over other data structures for representing sets

More generally, fewer than 10 bits per element are required for a 1% false positive probability, independent of the size or number of elements in the set.

If you force people to frequently change their passwords, they will use bad passwords.

Stop forcing users to change their passwords every 30, 60, or 90 days, and stop forcing users to include a mixture of uppercase, lowercase, and special charactersForcing users to change their passwords should only happen if there is reason to believe an organization has been breached, or if a new third-party data breach affects employees or users.

There's a tradeoff to be made between the false positive rate, the number of passwords checked, and the amount of disk/network bandwidth used.

"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!"

flag a false positive ("ham" is not-spam)

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.

As technology improves, humans keep integrating these extra abilities into our cyborg selves

On visiting a site with a “cookie consent” notice, I don’t feel empowered just irritated.

it really doesn’t take much clicking around the regional Internet to find a gaslighting cookie notice that pops up with a mocking message saying by using this website you’re consenting to your data being processed how the site sees fit — with just a single ‘Ok’ button to affirm your lack of say in the matter.

Out of 508 manually analysed websites that provide a way to opt out, we detected 39 websites where the banner stores a positive consent, even if the user explicitly refuses consent via the cookie banner.

We are not sensible, free thinking decision making people. As an individual I imagine that you will say "Yes I am". That's the beauty of the entire system. Consciously individuals believe that they are in control and make their own choices and yet I have met and experienced very few who have full autonomy

saying they give people all the controls they need to manage and control access to their information. But controls with dishonest instructions on how to use them aren’t really controls at all. And opt outs that don’t exist smell rather more like a lock in. 

Facebook does not even offer an absolute opt out of targeted advertising on its platform. The ‘choice’ it gives users is to agree to its targeted advertising or to delete their account and leave the service entirely. Which isn’t really a choice when balanced against the power of Facebook’s platform and the network effect it exploits to keep people using its service.

The absolutely worst thing that can happen in your anti-spam solution is to block a good email and not let anybody know about it!  Anti-spam solutions should always generate an NDR such that a legitimate sender can know their message didn't get through. (Of course, we know many legitimate users don't read nor understand NDRs, so there's still an issue)  A really good anti-spam solution should not only generate an NDR, but that NDR should have an "escape clause" in it that gives that legitimate user a special way to get through the anti-spam solution, if they take some reasonable steps.

The more data you send with each comment check, the better chance Akismet has of avoiding missed spam and false positives.

that permission must be freely obtained. Ergo, a free choice must be offered.So, in other words, a “data for access” cookie wall isn’t going to cut it. (Or, as the DPA puts it: “Permission is not ‘free’ if someone has no real or free choice. Or if the person cannot refuse giving permission without adverse consequences.”)

On the other hand, asking them to check a box when they have very little idea what they’re agreeing to — and not giving them any other viable options — doesn’t seem to be an ideal solution.

Hypothesis considers a "close enough match" to be a success and does NOT place the corresponding annotation in the Orphan category, thus creating a false positive.

Now using sudo to work around the root account is not only pointless, it's also dangerous: at first glance rsyncuser looks like an ordinary unprivileged account. But as I've already explained, it would be very easy for an attacker to gain full root access if he had already gained rsyncuser access. So essentially, you now have an additional root account that doesn't look like a root account at all, which is not a good thing.

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.

we believe that search companies may need to go to considerable trouble to separate user-generated from TMN-generated searches. Further, any such filtering efforts are likely to contain some number of false positives.

It needs to be fully repealed, because the first step out of the gate for Obamacare is a step in the wrong direction and that is for government control over every aspect of health care, so it’s hard to fix the system that they have put in place without ending that premise that government ought to be running and controlling health care.

you probably referred to the positive case where no one overrides anything and so the property returns true, so no need to process further because it is really an automation. Yes, this is true. I just hope that it does not make websites skip the checks if this returns false.

Because they're more integrated and try to serialize an incomplete system (e.g. one with some kind of side effects: from browser/library/runtime versions to environment to database/API changes), they will tend to have high false-negatives (failing test for which the production code is actually fine and the test just needs to be changed). False negatives quickly erode the team's trust in a test to actually find bugs and instead come to be seen as a chore on a checklist they need to satisfy before they can move on to the next thing.

I could rename toggle to handleButtonClick (and update the corresponding onClick reference). My test breaks despite this being a refactor.

I could mistakenly set onClick of the button to this.tgogle instead of this.toggle. My test continues to work, but my component is broken.

So finally I'm coming out with it and explaining why I never use shallow rendering and why I think nobody else should either. Here's my main assertion:With shallow rendering, I can refactor my component's implementation and my tests break. With shallow rendering, I can break my application and my tests say everything's still working.This is highly concerning to me because not only does it make testing frustrating, but it also lulls you into a false sense of security. The reason I write tests is to be confident that my application works and there are far better ways to do that than shallow rendering.

May not fail when you break application code. False positives

Can break when you refactor application code. False negatives

This is called a false positive. It means that we didn't get a test failure, but we should have

This is what's called a false negative. It means that we got a test failure, but it was because of a broken test, not broken app code.

Why is testing implementation details bad?There are two distinct reasons that it's important to avoid testing implementation details. Tests which test implementation details:Can break when you refactor application code. False negativesMay not fail when you break application code. False positives

Using expect { }.not_to raise_error(SpecificErrorClass) risks false positives, as literally any other error would cause the expectation to pass, including those raised by Ruby (e.g. NoMethodError, NameError, and ArgumentError)

If I use the word God or the word Christ, the word Jesus, the word Lord, and in any way it conveys the sense of an existent someone or something outside of yourself, you have the wrong concept of God or Christ.

Amazon said it was using automated technology to weed out false reviews.It said it invested "significant resources" to protect its review system "because we know customers value the insights and experiences shared by fellow shoppers". /**/ (function() { if (window.bbcdotcom && bbcdotcom.adverts && bbcdotcom.adverts.slotAsync) { bbcdotcom.adverts.slotAsync('mpu', [1,2,3]); } })(); /**/ "Even one inauthentic review is one too many," it added.But Which?'s probe suggested fake reviews were commonplace.

false Taste

Facebook Will Give Koch Brothers ‘Unprecedented Access’ to Our Personal Information

FDA Finds Thousands of Coors Light Beers Laced With Cocaine Nationwide; Production Will Stop For 30 Days

often they protractthe consultation process for years.

Fact-based journalism now competes with false information for our attention while our cities and citizens become both more connected by technology and more divided by ideology and income. The values reflected in lines of code, whether it be at the ATM, when we search on internet or drive a car, are already affecting what we think, what we do and what information we share with those around us.

(see the section GIT URLS below)

Sausage prosciutto ham tenderloin kevin chuck. Chuck tail kevin, ground round cow pork loin corned beef flank frankfurter short ribs alcatra venison pork chop tri-tip. Tongue bacon short loin, boudin ground round strip steak brisket meatloaf meatball ham shoulder doner drumstick sausage. Tri-tip shankle chuck beef pork belly kielbasa tail pig. Pork belly sausage corned beef turkey bresaola tail leberkas pancetta chicken salami drumstick bacon capicola hamburger.

Unfortunately, no instructor can ever hope to keep pace with the changing technologies, meaning each new front end developer joining the workforce is already several steps behind

a more insidious and cancerous progression took hold through municipal fiscal discipline, property speculation and the sorting of land-use according to the rate of return for its ‘highest and best use’.

to prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world, for the truth of which we pledge a faith yet unsullied by falsehood.

let facts be submitted to a candid world, for the truth of which we pledge a faith yet unsullied by falsehood.

FTT, as it applies to reasoning, is adapted from dual process models of human cognition. It differs from the traditional dual process model in that it makes a distinction between impulsivity and intuition—which are combined in System 1 according to traditional dual process theories—and then makes the claim that expertise and advanced cognition relies on intuition.[57] The distinction between intuition and analysis depends on what kind of representation is used to process information. The mental representations described by FTT are categorized as either gist or verbatim representations: Gist representations are bottom-line understandings of the meaning of information or experience, and are used in intuitive gist processing. Verbatim representations are the precise and detailed representations of the exact information or experience, and are used in analytic verbatim processing.

When people try to remember past events (e.g., a birthday party or the last dinner), they often commit two types of errors: errors of omission and errors of commission.

For argument based on knowledge implies instruction, and there are people whom one cannot instruct. Here, then, we must use, as our modes of persuasion and argument,