at least some of my audience sometimes misunderstand this position um they say well you know to express evil is also part of nature it's also part of the universal mind which is correct um but it is also part of you of the universal mind also part of nature to strive against evil to stop evil and sometimes forcefully if need be because you're not just going to wait for evil to come and barbarize your loved ones and violate truth left and right i think what this understand understanding calls for is not the complete cessation of the use of force when force is the last resort that we have at our at our hands what it calls for is the the end of the notion that the use of force is a form of vengeance

whoever the Democratic nominee may be um anyone is preferable to uh the uh Prospect of a 00:10:40 Donald Trump emboldened by this decision and threatening to start imposing autocracy

And so when we have this simplistic view of power, we're missing the story. What you really need is a system that attracts the right kind of people 01:18:20 so that the diplomats who are clean and nice and rule-following end up in power. Then you need a system that gives them all the right incentives to follow the rules once they get there. And then if you do have people who break the rules, there needs to be consequences. So the study from UN diplomats and their parking behavior actually, I think, illuminates a huge amount of very interesting dynamics around power,

you nailed it! A consumer should only be able to set an object's state at initialization (via the constructor). Once the object has come to life, it should be internally responsible for its own state lifecycle. Allowing consumers to affect the state adds unnecessary complexity and risk.

Making a property writable adds an order of magnitude in complexity. In the real world it's definitely not realistic for every class to be immutable, but if most of your classes are, it's remarkably easier to write bug-free code. I had that revelation once and I hope to help others have it.

the errors that you get from JSON schema can sometimes be very confusing. I wanted to be able to generate errors that could easily be understood to speed up debugging time.

Too new to comment on the specific answer

The problem with this is that it creates a strong coupling between your code and the implementation, exactly what the interface was supposed to prevent.

The Lord led me to a wonderful Christian ophthalmologist with unconventional methods of arresting the disease through diet alone and that has saved my sight.

You can write the query in this good old way to avoid error

Also there is always an option to use SQL: @items .joins(:orders) .where("orders.user_id = ? OR items.available = true", current_user.id)

but if .or() throws an error then I'm back to the bad old days of using to_sql

You should default to the most permissive option imo and there really is no reason to check anything until you really need to If it were left to me I'd just use optional chaining, as it also eliminates the need for no-ops

Saving form data across sessions — what do people hate more than filling out a form? Filling out a form twice!

However, IMO, having the conditional in the detach function is necessary, because there are other manifestations of this error. For example, if the DOM element in a component is removed from software outside of svelte, detach will have the same error.

IMO, the conditional needs to be added to detach to fix all manifestations of this error.

DX: start sapper project; configure eslint; eslint say that svelt should be dep; update package.json; build fails with crypt error; try to figure what the hell; google it; come here (if you have luck); revert package.json; add ignore error to eslint; Maybe we should offer better solution for this.

When the message say function was called outside component initialization first will look at my code and last at my configuration.

Svelte will not offer a generic way to support style customizing via contextual class overrides (as we'd do it in plain HTML). Instead we'll invent something new that is entirely different. If a child component is provided and does not anticipate some contextual usage scenario (style wise) you'd need to copy it or hack around that via :global hacks.

The problem with working around the current limitations of Svelte style (:global, svelte:head, external styles or various wild card selectors) is that the API is uglier, bigger, harder to explain AND it loses one of the best features of Svelte IMO - contextual style encapsulation. I can understand that CSS classes are a bit uncontrollable, but this type of blocking will just push developers to work around it and create worse solutions.

Even without going to that extreme, the constraint of having a single <style> can easily force component authors to resort to the kinds of classes-as-namespaces hacks that scoped styles are supposed to obviate.

real-time and paragraph-locking co-editing modes

The US president has claimed the social media platform is "interfering in the 2020 presidential election" and "completely stifling FREE SPEECH" after it added a warning to two of his tweets on Tuesday.

This is it. I'm done with Page Translator, but you don't have to be. Fork the repo. Distribute the code yourself. This is now a cat-and-mouse game with Mozilla. Users will have to jump from one extension to another until language translation is a standard feature or the extension policy changes.

If any Firefox engineers are reading this, please don't try to subvert the above workaround, it requires multiple steps and administrator rights to set up, and we must all agree that it is of little sense for Firefox to try defending against unwanted programs or malware that has root access on the device.

Mozilla will never publicly ask users to circumvent their own blocklist. But it's their actions that are forcing people to do so.

So to me, it seems like they want to keep their users safer by... making them use Google Chrome or... exposing themselves to even greater danger by disabling the whole blocklist.