90 Matching Annotations
  1. Apr 2021
    1. This error may be a result of a few issues so the solutions also vary. You can resolve this issue by renaming your account. To fix Outlook something went wrong, please sign in to Microsoft account and open your info page. Locate and select Manage how you sign in Microsoft option. Please look under the Account aliases section; if you already have a personal email address, please skip this step and if you do not have it, click on Add Alias. Make this personal email address your primary alias and remove other emails.

    2. You may be facing such problem because your browser is outdated. Open Google Chrome browser and click on the menu icon at the top-right corner. To fix Outlook something went wrong, click on Help from the list of options, and then click on About Google Chrome. A new tab should open and the browser will check for available updates. Next step error is to wait for it to look for new updates. If there is a new update, click on Update to start the update.

    3. The users of Outlook often complain that they face technical problems such as Outlook won't open. You must move to the upper-right corner, there choose file, and then options and then Add-ins. Now, in such situations, you must try to restart Outlook and then try to disable the add-in. Now, after some time, you are supposed to start Outlook. You must make sure that you do restart the disable restart process for every add-in which was already enabled in Outlook.

      For more details: Outlook something went wrong

    1. Of course you must not use plain-text passwords and place them directly into scripts. You even must not use telnet protocol at all. And avoid ftp, too. I needn’t say why you should use ssh, instead, need I? And you also must not plug your fingers into 220 voltage AC-output. Telnet was chosen for examples as less harmless alternative, because it’s getting rare in real life, but it can show all basic functions of expect-like tools, even abilities to send passwords. BUT, you can use “Expect and Co” to do other things, I just show the direction.
    1. What I dislike from the achievements is the "Dialogue Skipper". I really don't like it because you are encouraging people just to skim or even skip it at all and not get interested with the story. I earned this achievement on a 2nd run but I had a friend who just skipped it all on her 1st try.What devs should encourage is for the gamers to have a lot of playing time on their game so they would recommend it to others and not just do it for the cards and uninstalling it afterwards.
    1. Rather than rewarding the player for discovering a well-thought-out or ideal solution (by picking up coins), the developer tacked on a timer to a game with non-fluid controls. The player feels rushed to discover an elaborate solution.
    1. Yes, you are right. That was a very bad workaround. Stubbing methods on NilClass can be compared to switching to dark side of force. Powerful but comes with a huge price. I highly don't recommend using my workaround from 1 year ago.
  2. Mar 2021
    1. Yes, but honestly, and no offense intended, but I don't see the harm in these type questions, nor why some people are offended when they are asked. If I owed a website, I wouldn't mind it because it just creates more pages that can be indexed. I see it as helping the website. But, I did look and didn't see a simple answer. Again, no offense is intended. I've just never understood the complaints.
  3. Feb 2021
    1. For branching out a separate path in an activity, use the Path() macro. It’s a convenient, simple way to declare alternative routes

      Seems like this would be a very common need: once you switch to a custom failure track, you want it to stay on that track until the end!!!

      The problem is that in a Railway, everything automatically has 2 outputs. But we really only need one (which is exactly what Path gives us). And you end up fighting the defaults when there are the automatic 2 outputs, because you have to remember to explicitly/verbosely redirect all of those outputs or they may end up going somewhere you don't want them to go.

      The default behavior of everything going to the next defined step is not helpful for doing that, and in fact is quite frustrating because you don't want unrelated steps to accidentally end up on one of the tasks in your custom failure track.

      And you can't use fail for custom-track steps becase that breaks magnetic_to for some reason.

      I was finding myself very in need of something like this, and was about to write my own DSL, but then I discovered this. I still think it needs a better DSL than this, but at least they provided a way to do this. Much needed.

      For this example, I might write something like this:

      step :decide_type, Output(Activity::Left, :credit_card) => Track(:with_credit_card)
      
      # Create the track, which would automatically create an implicit End with the same id.
      Track(:with_credit_card) do
          step :authorize
          step :charge
      end
      

      I guess that's not much different than theirs. Main improvement is it avoids ugly need to specify end_id/end_task.

      But that wouldn't actually be enough either in this example, because you would actually want to have a failure track there and a path doesn't have one ... so it sounds like Subprocess and a new self-contained ProcessCreditCard Railway would be the best solution for this particular example... Subprocess is the ultimate in flexibility and gives us all the flexibility we need)


      But what if you had a path that you needed to direct to from 2 different tasks' outputs?

      Example: I came up with this, but it takes a lot of effort to keep my custom path/track hidden/"isolated" and prevent other tasks from automatically/implicitly going into those steps:

      class Example::ValidationErrorTrack < Trailblazer::Activity::Railway
        step :validate_model, Output(:failure) => Track(:validation_error)
        step :save,           Output(:failure) => Track(:validation_error)
      
        # Can't use fail here or the magnetic_to won't work and  Track(:validation_error) won't work
        step :log_validation_error, magnetic_to: :validation_error,
          Output(:success) => End(:validation_error), 
          Output(:failure) => End(:validation_error) 
      end
      
      puts Trailblazer::Developer.render o
      Reloading...
      
      #<Start/:default>
       {Trailblazer::Activity::Right} => #<Trailblazer::Activity::TaskBuilder::Task user_proc=validate_model>
      #<Trailblazer::Activity::TaskBuilder::Task user_proc=validate_model>
       {Trailblazer::Activity::Left} => #<Trailblazer::Activity::TaskBuilder::Task user_proc=log_validation_error>
       {Trailblazer::Activity::Right} => #<Trailblazer::Activity::TaskBuilder::Task user_proc=save>
      #<Trailblazer::Activity::TaskBuilder::Task user_proc=save>
       {Trailblazer::Activity::Left} => #<Trailblazer::Activity::TaskBuilder::Task user_proc=log_validation_error>
       {Trailblazer::Activity::Right} => #<End/:success>
      #<Trailblazer::Activity::TaskBuilder::Task user_proc=log_validation_error>
       {Trailblazer::Activity::Left} => #<End/:validation_error>
       {Trailblazer::Activity::Right} => #<End/:validation_error>
      #<End/:success>
      
      #<End/:validation_error>
      
      #<End/:failure>
      

      Now attempt to do it with Path... Does the Path() have an ID we can reference? Or maybe we just keep a reference to the object and use it directly in 2 different places?

      class Example::ValidationErrorTrack::VPathHelper1 < Trailblazer::Activity::Railway
         validation_error_path = Path(end_id: "End.validation_error", end_task: End(:validation_error)) do
          step :log_validation_error
        end
        step :validate_model, Output(:failure) => validation_error_path
        step :save,           Output(:failure) => validation_error_path
      end
      
      o=Example::ValidationErrorTrack::VPathHelper1; puts Trailblazer::Developer.render o
      Reloading...
      
      #<Start/:default>
       {Trailblazer::Activity::Right} => #<Trailblazer::Activity::TaskBuilder::Task user_proc=validate_model>
      #<Trailblazer::Activity::TaskBuilder::Task user_proc=validate_model>
       {Trailblazer::Activity::Left} => #<Trailblazer::Activity::TaskBuilder::Task user_proc=log_validation_error>
       {Trailblazer::Activity::Right} => #<Trailblazer::Activity::TaskBuilder::Task user_proc=save>
      #<Trailblazer::Activity::TaskBuilder::Task user_proc=log_validation_error>
       {Trailblazer::Activity::Right} => #<End/:validation_error>
      #<Trailblazer::Activity::TaskBuilder::Task user_proc=save>
       {Trailblazer::Activity::Left} => #<Trailblazer::Activity::TaskBuilder::Task user_proc=log_validation_error>
       {Trailblazer::Activity::Right} => #<End/:success>
      #<End/:success>
      
      #<End/:validation_error>
      
      #<End/:failure>
      

      It's just too bad that:

      • there's not a Railway helper in case you want multiple outputs, though we could probably create one pretty easily using Path as our template
      • we can't "inline" a separate Railway acitivity (Subprocess "nests" it rather than "inlines")
    2. step :direct_debit

      I don't think we would/should really want to make this the "success" (Right) path and :credit_card be the "failure" (Left) track.

      Maybe it's okay to repurpose Left and Right for something other than failure/success ... but only if we can actually change the default semantic of those signals/outputs. Is that possible? Maybe there's a way to override or delete the default outputs?

    1. Things could go wrong in two places here. First, the validation could fail if Github sends us data we don’t understand. Second, we might not know the user signing in, meaning the “find user” logic has to error-out
    1. These two mistakes, especially the second one, plant worries in your customers mind before they’ve even had time to think of them.
    2. Stop warning people – no contract, no obligations, cancel anytime – companies can’t resist saying this on every pricing page but by using negative words they’re just putting ideas into people’s heads.
    1. Yes, you do face difficult choices (moral) but you don't care about it. All you care are the reputation bars. So... Let's kill this guy, who cares if he is innocent, but this faction needs it or I'm dead. Sounds great on paper but to be honest... you just sit there and do whatever for these reputation bars. If you won't, then you lose
  4. Dec 2020
    1. The only solution that I can see is to ensure that each user gets their own set of stores for each server-rendered page. We can achieve this with the context API, and expose the stores like so: <script> import { stores } from '@sapper/app'; const { page, preloading, session } = stores(); </script> Calling stores() outside component initialisation would be an error.

      Good solution.

    1. This would be cumbersome, and would encourage developers to populate stores from inside components, which makes accidental data leakage significantly more likely.
    2. which makes it much harder to accidentally keep logged-in state visible after a client-side logout
    1. No more waiting around for pull requests to be merged and published. No more forking repos just to fix that one tiny thing preventing your app from working.

      This could be both good and bad.

      potential downside: If people only fix things locally, then they may be less inclined/likely to actually/also submit a merge request, and therefore it may be less likely that this actually (ever) gets fixed upstream. Which is kind of ironic, considering the stated goal "No more waiting around for pull requests to be merged and published." But if this obviates the need to create a pull request (does it), then this could backfire / work against that goal.

      Requiring someone to fork a repo and push up a fix commit -- although a little extra work compared to just fixing locally -- is actually a good thing overall, for the community/ecosystem.

      Ah, good, I see they touched on some of these points in the sections:

      • Benefits of patching over forking
      • When to fork instead
  5. Nov 2020
    1. I'm still calling this v1.00 as this is what will be included in the first print run.

      There seems to be an artificial pressure and a false assumption that the version that gets printed and included in the box be the "magic number" 1.00.

      But I think there is absolutely nothing bad or to be ashamed of to have the version number printed in the rule book be 1.47 or even 2.0. (Or, of course, you could just not print it at all.) It's just being transparent/honest about how many versions/revisions you've made. 

    1. There was a major refactoring in the resolver (https://github.com/webpack/enhanced-resolve). This means the resolving option were changed too. Mostly simplification and changes that make it more unlikely to configure it incorrectly.
    1. I think you meant a different set of arguments to Object.assign ? should be Object.assign({}, api.headers, headers) because you don't want to keep adding custom headers into hash of common api.headers. right?
    1. You could decide to trust yourself and your teammates to always remember this special case. You can all freely use short-circuiting, but simply don't allow a short-circuit expression to be on the last line of a script, for anything actually deployed. This may work 100% reliably for you and your team, but I don't believe that is the case for myself and many other developers. Of course, some kind of linter or commit hook might help.
    1. It might seem too obvious but I've been struggling long time with this until I got that you need to include the base image too

      Thanks for the tip

    2. the "trick" is to pass to --cache-from the image you are rebuilding (and have it pulled already) and ALSO the image that it uses as base in the FROM.
    1. The average hydrogeochemical gradient for the Polish lowlands is 5.7 g/dm3/100m

      Fake reference - unfortunately such information doesn't exist in the source file!

  6. Oct 2020
    1. Looking at all those bearing, heading, orientation, navigation, position, direction, etc. I think we have a bigger problem here. Someone has decided how to use tag (e.g. orientation is about page orientation), but there are 100 other cases. Imho, to disallow misusing there should be no "heading", but rather "html-heading", "gps-heading", "whatelse-heading", which make mistakes impossible. So yes, "heading" should go.
    1. Perhaps we should detect URLSearchParams objects differently (using duck typing detection instead of instanceof window.URLSearchParams, for example) but the solution isn't adding a specific polyfill to Axios (as it'd increase the bundle size and still won't work with other polyfills).
    1. Sometimes we can’t implement a solution that’s fully spec-compliant, and in those cases using a polyfill might be the wrong answer. A polyfill would translate into telling the rest of the codebase that it’s okay to use the feature, that it’ll work just like in modern browsers, but it might not in edge cases.
    1. Note that if you are calling reset() and not specify new initial values, you must call it with no arguments. Be careful to avoid things like promise.catch(reset) or onChange={form.reset} in React, as they will get arguments passed to them and reinitialize your form.
  7. Sep 2020
  8. Aug 2020
    1. Will you accept merge requests on the gitlab-ce/gitlab-foss project after it has been renamed? No. Merge requests submitted to this project will be closed automatically.
    1. As a result, I end up quoting multiple people, sometimes quoting several people back-to-back, before even writing my reply. In those instances it feels like I'm not properly citing those individuals. I feel like it might seem I'm not providing new readers appropriate context for a given quote. It might also be implied that separate quotes are from the same person, leading to mis-attribution.
  9. Jun 2020
    1. OK, so what about regular messages? Turns out they are not encrypted after all. Where Signal implements the security and privacy protocols right from the start, Telegram separates the two and offers an additional option. The problem is that not everyone is aware of the Secret Chat option and first-time users may send sensitive information in the regular chat window unknowingly.
  10. May 2020
    1. Unscrupulous providers are incentivized to use inefficient or malicious means to increase break/fix work and thus increase their revenue.
    1. While this is illegal and can result in criminal and civil penalties, your cooperation may make you eligible for up to a US$50,000 reward.

      Might not this motivate someone to conspire with someone else, one to commit the crime and one to collect the reward? Probably mitigated by a contingency that the reward may only be collected if criminal is successfully charged and prosecuted?

  11. Apr 2020
    1. IDEs and standard *nix tools like sed can help, but you typically have to make a trade-off between introducing errors and introducing tedium.
  12. Mar 2020
    1. It won't let me go beyond this page. I'm sure I've answered the CAPTCHA correctly at least some of the 10+ times I've tried. What's going on?

      I can't even access their static website to find contact information for how to contact them about this problem!

    1. illustrates the extent to which illegal practices prevail, with vendors of CMPs turning a blind eye to — or worse, incentivising — clearly illegal configurations of their systems
    2. All of which means — per EU law — it should be equally easy for website visitors to choose not to be tracked as to agree to their personal data being processed.
    3. “Popular CMP implementation wizards still allow their clients to choose implied consent, even when they have already indicated the CMP should check whether the visitor’s IP is within the geographical scope of the EU, which should be mutually exclusive,” they note, arguing that: “This raises significant questions over adherence with the concept of data protection by design in the GDPR.”
    1. b

      protonation state of the compound in panel b is wrong

    Tags

    Annotators

    1. Earlier this year it began asking Europeans for consent to processing their selfies for facial recognition purposes — a highly controversial technology that regulatory intervention in the region had previously blocked. Yet now, as a consequence of Facebook’s confidence in crafting manipulative consent flows, it’s essentially figured out a way to circumvent EU citizens’ fundamental rights — by socially engineering Europeans to override their own best interests.
  13. Jan 2020
  14. Dec 2019
    1. Despite the successful resolution, it was still quite unsettling that a domain name could be transferred to another registrant and sinkholed for some perceived violation. I thought there would be more checks in place to confirm that a perceived violation was real before a domain could be transferred.

      This is highly unsettling. A person, organisation, country, or company should not be able to have a domain name transferred from its rightful owner this easily.

    1. It shouldn't be useful to distinguish between requests made by Ajax and other kinds of request. Pretty much any usecase where you'd want to do that is better served by using the Accept header to ask for data in a specific format.
  15. Aug 2019
    1. I don’t like reducers. I’ve tried using them, but I always end up migrating away. Something just feels wrong about dispatching actions to trigger business logic when I could instead do so by invoking a function with arguments.
    1. As Sebastian Markbage pointed out, no abstraction is superior to wrong abstractions. We are providing low-level components to maximize composition capabilities.
    1. Case in point: take this css selector: h1.header > a[rel~="author"] Its shortest functional XPath equivalent would be //h1[contains(" "+normalize-space(@class)+" "," header ")]/a[contains(" "+normalize-space(@rel)+" "," author ")] …which is both much harder to read and write. If you wrote this XPath instead: //h1[@class="header"]/a[@rel="author"] …you would incorrectly have missed markup like <h1 class="article header"><a rel="author external" href="/mike">...</a></h1>
  16. Sep 2018
  17. Jan 2018
  18. Oct 2017
    1. But, how confident our we that our manipulation of the light switch was the only variable changing in our experiment?

      Correction first "our" should be changed to "are".

  19. Apr 2017
  20. Nov 2016
    1. Coral reefs result from the work of little polyps, creatures only a few millimeters long, budded on top of one another. Over centuries, the shells of these creatures combine to form the exotic shapes of coral reefs. Tiny differences in the anatomy of each polyp species affect the shape of their shells and produce the exotic shapes of each reef.

      Skeletons, not shells. Far from the most articulate description but generally not wrong.

  21. Aug 2014
    1. When CO2 dissolves in water, we are NOT adding acid to the water.

      CO2 does increase the acidity when dissolved in water. For reference, see for instance "Once dissolved in seawater, CO2 gas reacts with water to form carbonic acid" in Doney et al (2008) http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/full/10.1146/annurev.marine.010908.163834

  22. Oct 2013
    1. The ambitious man does wrong for sake of honour, the quick-tempered from anger, the lover of victory for the sake of victory, the embittered man for the sake of revenge, the stupid man because he has misguided notions of right and wrong, the shameless man because he does not mind what people think of him; and so with the rest -- any wrong that any one does to others corresponds to his particular faults of character.

      Types of people who commit wrong-doings. It is interesting because they all do the same things but for drastically different reasons.

    1. The fact is that anger makes us confident -- that anger is excited by our knowledge that we are not the wrongers but the wronged, and that the divine power is always supposed to be on the side of the wronged.

      It is pretty true. We aren't objective when we are angry.

    1. The worse of two acts of wrong done to others is that which is prompted by the worse disposition. Hence the most trifling acts may be the worst ones;

      But how would anyone know what kind of disposition the doer really possessed? This seems something that only an all-knowing God or gods would know, that is why our justice system works off of the crime committed. You get into difficult judgement calls when you start at the root of why someone did something. Like when people plead mental illness for why they committed a crime. I'm not making a judgement call on whether this is right. I'm only stating that if we start going that route, when do we stop? Do we scan everyone's brain for why they did it and blame it all on mental instability? What about when our technology gets so good that we can see each area of their brain that has been affected by abuse? There most likely is something funky going on in everyone's brain who does something terrible... so should we judge them on their actions or the reasons behind them?