Gemini Robotics Perceive, reason, use tools and interact

tool use allows us to assess text entry in terms of its utility—how well it supports users in thatpursuit—and its usability—how easy it is to enter text and learn how to enter text.

For example, text entry methods such as eye typing are designed to allow nonspeaking users with motor disabilities to enter text using their eye movements only.

Tool use alsotriggers the concept of accessibility.

Thinking about text entry as

Text entry is also a good example of tool use (Chapter 19). A text entry method is a tool that allows the user to communicate with someone or something, typically other people or a service, using asynchronous text messages and longer documents.

For example, interaction-as-tool-usefocuses on this idea (Chapter 19). Tools change people and their activities; in turn, this changesthe tools.

One of the reasons I initially pushed back on the creation of a JSON Schema for V3 is because I feared that people would try to use it as a document validator. However, I was convinced by other TSC members that there were valid uses of a schema beyond validation.

The intent of this specification and related tools is to expand the reach of development containers, allow the usage of containers by themselves or different orchestration technologies, and allow any tool to manage and create them.

The focus of the dev container specification is to describe how to enrich a container for the purposes of development, rather than acting as a multi-container orchestrator format.

apart from [Websockets], which is unnecessarily complex for non-browser applications

(And please, no "use a different email design service" answers, I don't have control over that)

This isn't really a downside to React; one of React's strengths is that it lets you control so much and slot React into your environment

This could be an operation, a workflow, or hand-baked Ruby code completely unrelated to Trailblazer.

Second, I don't agree that there are too many small modules. In fact, I wish every common function existed as its own module. Even the maintainers of utility libraries like Underscore and Lodash have realized the benefits of modularity and allowed you to install individual utilities from their library as separate modules. From where I sit that seems like a smart move. Why should I import the entirety of Underscore just to use one function? Instead I'd rather see more "function suites" where a bunch of utilities are all published separately but under a namespace or some kind of common name prefix to make them easier to find. The way Underscore and Lodash have approached this issue is perfect. It gives consumers of their packages options and flexibility while still letting people like Dave import the whole entire library if that's what they really want to do.

Normally you should not register a named module, but instead register as an anonymous module: define(function () {}); This allows users of your code to rename your library to a name suitable for their project layout. It also allows them to map your module to a dependency name that is used by other libraries.

Honeybadger isn't a single page app, and it probably won't ever be. SPAs just don't make sense for our technical requirements.

There is one situation where iframes are (almost) required: when the contents of the iframe is in a different domain, and you have to perform authentication or check cookies that are bound to that domain. It actually prevents security problems instead of creating them. For example, if you're writing a kind of plugin that can be used on any website, but the plugin has to authenticate on another domain, you could create a seamless iframe that runs and authenticates on the external domain.

Usually, if you can do it without an iframe, that is a better option. I'm sure others here may have more information or more specific examples, it all comes down to the problem you are trying to solve.

Better contribution workflow: We will be using GitHub’s contribution tools and features, essentially moving MDN from a Wiki model to a pull request (PR) model. This is so much better for contribution, allowing for intelligent linting, mass edits, and inclusion of MDN docs in whatever workflows you want to add it to (you can edit MDN source files directly in your favorite code editor).

As an engineer, it’s important to explore different technologies. It’s important to identify the tools available to tackle problems. And it’s important to expand your horizons because then you can look cool on your CV.

What I think we're lacking is proper tooling, or at least the knowledge of it. I don't know what most people use to write Git commits, but concepts like interactive staging, rebasing, squashing, and fixup commits are very daunting with Git on the CLI, unless you know really well what you're doing. We should do a better job at learning people how to use tools like Git Tower (to give just one example) to rewrite Git history, and to produce nice Git commits.