This feels like it runs along the same lines as the "type the name of the item you want to delete" requirement some confirmations windows use.

Can’t beat reversing the backtrace output for making Ruby even more enjoyable. Slogging up through a huge pile of calls was one of the few things that drove me mad.

Just need to rework all these

e.backtrace.first lines to e.backtrace.last

Or maybe my favorite which is still good

puts “#{e.message} #{e.backtrace.join(“\n”)}”

That code will still work, they are using the experimental feature only when the backtrace is printed to a tty.

Do you have any resources to expand on the issues with AR callbacks? I'm interested to read up on this.

AR callbacks can also make it harder to write tests.

In short: you lose control of what is happening, especially when you expand/inherit other classes. These kind of problems arise after few months of development, when the codebase is grown enough and starts becoming even more difficult to change or extend.

Try to check Trailblazer for a different approach.

Considering that they were sneaking the Win10 update into random updates I expect that it would end up in the security-only channel almost immediately. Especially since one of the key arguments for the forced updates is security.

I suppose the counterargument there is "Win10 is not the security I want". IMHO I would define "security-only" --- or perhaps "critical-security-only" --- to be fixing remote code execution (e.g. WannaCry, various IE exploits, if/when anything is discovered in TCP/IP stack, etc.) and very little else.

I've seen several videos of cats interacting with their reflections but neither of mine act like the reflection even exists. Absolutely no reaction to it, it's as if it's just any other flat surface.

It definitely sucks, I never used to have to doubt the quality of amazon products, now I'm having to make sure I only buy amazon basics products or run reviews through some fake review spotter to try and make sure I'm not buying a lie.

Start too early and you'll sound like an end of the world preacher. You need to time it so that you look cutting edge rather than paranoid.

The thing with the various iPods was that they were at least different.

The three iPad lines are all fundamentally the same device with differing screen sizes.

To most people the iPods differed by size. The iPod was biggest, the mini was smaller, and the nano was tiny.

The iPad is prett much the same - you need a plain iPad? Ok, mini or 9.7"? You need a pro iPad? Ok, 9.7 or 12.9 inch?

Fundamentally this new 9.7 doesn't hangs anything - the iPad Air 2 is replaced by it in the non-pro, less expensive iPad lineup.

That's actually a really good idea.

If the recordings are high quality and enjoyable to listen to I'd subscribe to that podcast. Most web content does not have an audio transcription beyond screen readers.

They took men and women who were both gay and straight and demonstrated a bias in expected leadership ability based on perceived sexual orientation. They are not comparing charisma, the voice selected where selected specifically to have a high likelyhood of being attributed as gay or straight.

Arguing that a difference in outcome from this is because CEOs all sound charismatic and that they are able to pick up attention of a crowd better when there is a demonstrated bias between the two when the difference involved is specifically whether a voice is perceived as gay or straight implies that gay speakers are less likely to have those characteristics. Which is exactly what the paper's conclusion is, a bias against people who are perceived as gay for leadership positions based on their voice.

    We investigated this issue in four studies (overall N = 276), conducted in Italian language, 
    in which heterosexual listeners were exposed to single-sentence voice samples of gay/lesbian 
    and heterosexual speakers. In all four studies, listeners were found to make gender-typical 
    inferences about traits and preferences of heterosexual speakers, but gender-atypical inferences 
    about those of gay or lesbian speakers. Behavioral intention measures showed that listeners 
    considered lesbian and gay speakers as less suitable for a leadership position, and male 
    (but not female) listeners took distance from gay speakers. Together, this research demonstrates 
    that having a gay/lesbian rather than heterosexual-sounding voice has tangible consequences for 
    stereotyping and discrimination.

I think the sexuality bit is getting shoehorned in here, though. I'd want to see evidence that the study used charismatic, "big" voices that were judged as both straight and gay and still show that there is a bias against those perceived as gay.

Not only that but especially for CEO, hiring decisions are not made in a vacuum like this. Were the participants given mock resumes and career history? In an actual hiring process, again especially for CEO, the folks on Board responsible almost certainly would be familiar with the candidates' previous work, and probably know them already.

Being familiar with the client introduces another area of potential bias, removing that allows us to compare the specific variable being tested for.

I'm not entirely sure why the big voices thing is important. It's not like they were saying all the voices had low favourability or that what were perceived as gay voices had low favourability, they were demonstrating a difference between the two groups based on that one variable. Whether they were all high up the rankings or all low down the rankings is irrelevant, you just need them to be all within the same band. It's the difference that is what is being tested for.