Don't assume that because you opened up a pull request, that the author will accept it. There are many reasons that a maintainer might choose to not merge in your specific patch, many of which have nothing to do with you. If your patch isn't accepted, try to assume it's for a valid technical reason and not because the author hates you.

curiosity trap

the greater danger 00:09:34 is that the opinion sets up a kind of permission structure for Trump to do other lesser things

Dr. Sönke AhrensOn page 117 of "How to Take Smart Notes" you write the following: "The slip-box not only confronts us with dis-confirming information, butalso helps with what is known as the feature-positive effect (Allison andMessick 1988; Newman, Wolff, and Hearst 1980; Sainsbury 1971). This isthe phenomenon in which we tend to overstate the importance of informationthat is (mentally) easily available to us and tilts our thinking towards the mostrecently acquired facts, not necessarily the most relevant ones. Withoutexternal help, we would not only take exclusively into account what weknow, but what is on top of our heads.[35] The slip-box constantly remindsus of information we have long forgotten and wouldn’t remember otherwise –so much so, we wouldn’t even look for it."My question for you: Why have you chosen to use the Feature-Positive Effect as the phenomenon to make your point and not the recency bias?The recency bias seems more aligned with your point of our minds favoring recently learned information/knowledge over already existing, perhaps more relevant, cognitive schemata.To my mind, the FPE states that it is easier to detect patterns when the unique stimuli indicating the pattern is present rather than absent... In the following example:Pattern in this sequence: 1235 8593 0591 2531 8532 (all numbers have a 5; the unique feature is present) Pattern in this sequence: 1236 8193 0291 2931 8472 (no numbers contain a 5; the unique feature is absent)The pattern in the first sequence is more easily spotted than the pattern in the second sequence, this is the feature-positive effect. This has not much to do with your point.I do get what you are coming from, namely that we are biased towards what is more readily in mind; however, the extension of this argument with the comparison of relevance vs. time makes the recency bias or availability heuristic more applicable; and also easier to explain in my opinion.Once again, I am simply curious what made you choose the FPE as the phenomenon to explain.I hope you take the time to read this and respond to it. Thanks in advance.Sources in the comments

Hey Matthew, it's a fair point. Without having the whole passage or a previous draft in front of me, it could be simply the outcome of the editing process. It does read like you said: as if I had recency bias in mind (next to other fitting ones), which then got lost after having shortened it for readability. That's my best guess. Even though it is tempting in these cases to come up with some post-hoc, smart sounding reason...

Don't think that I just naturally perfectly segment these commits when creating the feature. I heavily rebase and edit the commits before creating a PR.

If anything in this policy does not fit with your own local policy, you should not use dnswl.org for whitelisting or similar purposes.

I'd suggest that you play around a little bit with a vanilla app. Create a brand new app without any additional files, just what rails new generates. See how bin/rails runner Models raises an error because there is no models directory in autoload_paths. Now, put config.autoload_paths += %W(#{config.root}/app) in config/application.rb and observe how bin/rails runner Models just returns a prompt. With the confidence of having that running, then transalate to your app.

Moonquakes? Scientists are cracking open the mystery of icy moons

If it's dangerous, note it in the class/method Javadocs, don't just blindly slam the door shut.

discussions about SMS-2FA get heated very quickly. I've found that SMS-2FA deployment or advocacy has been a major professional project for some people, and they take questioning it's efficacy personally

If anyone can completely refactor the JSON Schema description for OpenAPI v3.0 to accurately describe the schema in all its glory, without using this new keyword, then please do so, but I would kindly ask you to test the theory first.

The paradox of hoarding isthat no matter how much we collect and accumulate, it’s neverenough.

StopTheMadness is a web browser extension that stops web sites from making your browser harder to use

You can’t take your audience with you.

Best demonstration: glue PVC inside an ABS hub or vice-versa. Cut through the two with a mitre saw and make a nice, clean cut. Look at all the voids where the plastics didn't glue together.

Israel

[inaudible 00:26:06]

How to Take Smart Notes

Yeah, can we pay money to make this go faster? Serious question.

Am sa caabi!

computers theoretically need only one machine instruction (subtract one number from another and branch if the result is negative)

This is a useful approach to error handling, but please don’t take it to extremes! See my post on “Against Railway-Oriented Programming”.

Trust me, I'm not trying to stress you right now, but I just wanted to do a friendly bump in case you forgot about this. (I know how it is sometimes) If you get this notification and feel "Ugh, I really don't have time" you don't have to comment here and I'm sorry. I'm just sending you a notification in case you forgot. If not, feel free to archive the email and not click/tap on anything.

The great ones have a thought pro-cess, philosophy and habit all rolled into one that overshadows the rest: I am responsible.

I’d still be interested in Svelte making things easier so I’ve opened a feature request for Reactive statement cleanup functions.

you expect some hyperbole during these presentations and you should of course question and verify the claims being made.

So when Avdi took to air some of those grievances on Twitter, the natural thing happened that always happens when you feel your work is attacked: The core contributor group got defensive! That’s a mischaracterization! Where are the completed bug reports!? You know the drill, if you’ve ever worked on something, poured your heart into it, and then seen it criticized online. There’s that immediate, knee-jerk reaction of a sting. But it doesn’t have to sting.

est it using bash -c 'echo ${!#}' arg1 arg2 arg3.

I will need to find a workaround for one of my private extensions that controls devices in my home network, and its source code cannot be uploaded to Mozilla because of my and my family's privacy.

I believe that beginning to distribute tools that patch Firefox and give back power to users and allow them to install unsigned extensions is necessary when an organization is taking away our rights without giving us a compelling reason for doing so.

sur-veillance has been to imagine them as equally affecting all users.

Take the challenge: Compare your Google Analytics data (sampled data) against your Matomo data.

it is possible to verify this yourself by noting that we don’t have any analytics tool installed in the code of that page

Here’s how to check it:

I enjoy dissent and debate among commenters, and criticism of my views is also always welcome; you are even free to call me an assclown, a dupe, a partisan ignoramus — whatever you like, as long as you don't insult other commenters.

I've been meaning to remind readers that I do read the comments. Some time ago, one disappointed commenter mused that others' reflections seemed to go (as I recall) "into a void," because I remained silent to each. Perhaps I was ignoring readers' remarks? I assure you that is not the case. I read them all — although on this site, for some reason, "all" means somewhat sparse — and I find them nearly all remarkable in their perceptiveness. I especially welcome, and enjoy, intelligent disagreement. I choose not to respond, however, only because of my editorial philosophy, which holds that the comment section is, rightfully, for commenters — and commenters alone. I've already had my say, and it seems to me rather rude to take another whack in reply. Whenever I'm so substantively shaky or incoherent as to make my case unpersuasively the first time around, I figure I should live with the consequences. And whenever I find criticism flawed, I figure readers — perceptive as they are — will see the flaw as well, therefore there's no need for me to rub it in. So, I beg you not to take my silence personally.

how can we convey to such students the deep engagement we feel with challenging literary texts? I argue that we cannot do this effectively if our teaching does not take place in the zone of proximal development, that is, if we are focused exclusively on print close reading.

For me, the topic is much more than the latest research fad, because it hits me where I live: the college classroom.

(hayles, “hyper and Deep Attention”)

The scientific research is valuable and should not be ignored, but our experiences are also valuable and can tell us a great deal about the advantages and disadvantages of hyperreading compared with close reading, as well as the long-term effects of engaging in either or both of these reading strategies

, the example illustrates the unsurprising fact that read-ing someone else’s synthesis does not give as detailed or precise a picture as reading the primary sources themselves.

and I of course agree

Massive Open Online Classes

authorizetakeofupto1,169deserttortoise(Mojavepopulation)within12,264acresofdeserttortoisehabitatand31,282acresofpotentialhabitat

highlighted

The Bureau cannot share responses, addresses or personal information with anyone including United States or foreign government and law enforcement agencies such as the IRS or the FBI or Interpol.