Two people declined to re-license their contributions to Racket. We therefore removed their contributions and, where appropriate, replaced them with new code and/or documentation.
If you're not aware of that, it is very tempting to use `useRef`, which is what I have often seen. Before hooks, we did not have the temptingly-named footgun `useRef` for this scenario (although we did have other footguns for other scenarios, and overall I love hooks).
Tons of shitty "here's how to use hooks for X" articles on Medium make the mistake, so people learning hooks right at the beginning will not be completely immune.
Also that the fix is "instead of using this one kind ref, use another kind of ref and put it in state"... I don't know, like I said I'm not sure if there is a better solution, but it still feels kind of unintuitive and complicated.
Now that I'm thinking about it... what is the reason that DOM refs and other refs need to be handled by the same concept? Every time I make a DOM ref, I'm doing something with it in a hook like useEffect. Why make me jump through hoops to re-run the hook if the DOM ref changes?
(I recognize there are probably good answers to those questions, the React folks are great, I just don't know the answers! Is it just to avoid introducing one more "type of thing", and instead making refs and DOM refs the same "thing"?)
I've seen a ton of people make that mistake, though. I think it's because what you write is accurate - "refs are meant for values that don't need to trigger a rerender" - but most people think of refs (or at least refs of DOM elements, which for many people are the only refs they ever use) as just a way to access a DOM element. They expect it to just be a DOM element in a normal variable.
I'm not sure if there is a less confusing way of doing it, but it's damn confusing.
I don't think that can explain it, because IIRC that rule has only been around since Obamacare, but the US/world price disparity for prescription drugs has existed much longer than that.
Sometimes there are browser bugs that are impossible to do feature detection for, in which case have no better option than looking at the user agent.
For instance, several versions of Firefox had a serious bug in shared workers, which appeared intermittently when users opened your site in multiple tabs https://stackoverflow.com/questions/51092596/feature-detecti... - I had to use the user agent to work around this.
20x more is not a sure thing, but for a disease like Alzheimer's that is already pretty common (e.g. we're not talking about risk increasing from 0.01% to 0.2%) it's more meaningful than just for entertainment purposes.
I agree with your wife that for most people their 23andme results will be nothing more than entertainment, but there are a handful of truly meaningful things it can find.
What does "rationalized" mean? Highly respected open access publishers like PLoS charge similar fees https://www.plos.org/publication-fees - maybe that's just what it costs to run a journal? If not, PLoS must be some ridiculously profitable scam.
That's not true, 23andme tests the APOE gene (and possibly some others too) which does indeed have a large affect on the risk of developing Alzheimer's.
Although having the good version of APOE doesn't mean you'll never get it, and having the bad version doesn't mean you're guaranteed to get it. The odds do shift quite a bit, though.
Firefox 52 may be around for a while - it's the last LTS before extensions were broken by Quantum, and it's also the last release that runs on XP and Vista.
I'm psyched to see the fix to https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1193394 released, which (amongst other things) mean that you can finally write code using both IndexedDB and promises without inadvertently committing the active transaction on promise resolution. Now I just need to wait until the market share of other Firefox versions decreases before I can actually take advantage in production :)
Our first action, which began immediately after the incident concluded, was to implement a 24-hour cooldown on republication of any deleted package name.
In my job, I edit the production database live because adding a special feature (or even a bug fix) takes like a year to get deployed to production, even if it's as simple as a one line change.
Is that actually allowed by the GPL? I thought it was more like the "Ship of Theseus" - that even if you eventually replace all the original GPL code, the entire work remains GPLed. https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/2603...