How can you use hooks right now? The standard is reagent which compiles down to classes which don't work with hooks. I think reagent has given a functional react and hooks style programming for years but now is a little behind the curve.
You would do what Reagent does and use JS interop yourself and call React directly. Plenty of people in Clojure-land implement things themselves if the thing to implement seems simple enough. Probably more true for Clojure developers than let's say JS/Ruby developers.
Are you reading that as you are prevented from working on the car? I took that as a promise that they would be willing to service and repair the car with the same team that originally built the car
that reminds me of a suggestion of where to keep nuclear codes:
> My suggestion was quite simple: Put that needed code number in a little capsule, and then implant that capsule right next to the heart of a volunteer. The volunteer would carry with him a big, heavy butcher knife as he accompanied the President. If ever the President wanted to fire nuclear weapons, the only way he could do so would be for him first, with his own hands, to kill one human being. The President says, "George, I'm sorry but tens of millions must die." He has to look at someone and realize what death is—what an innocent death is. Blood on the White House carpet. It's reality brought home.
> When I suggested this to friends in the Pentagon they said, "My God, that's terrible. Having to kill someone would distort the President's judgment. He might never push the button."
> — Roger Fisher, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, March 1981
Why? How should we decide to spend the resources it orbit Neptune? Why not Saturn or Jupiter; why not land on a comet? Why not put a human on the moon again or perhaps spend the money or medical research or nuclear fusion. What about Neptune seems so compelling to you? I would never have thought it an important or memorable goal and just want to hear why Neptune is so alluring.
Because the 10-year-old me was teased with pictures and mysteries I want answers to. Because it’s so far. Because it can’t see more than a pale dot in my telescope. Because it’s so alien. And because we have been there, done that on everything you mentioned.
Perhaps if I’m ever granted the opportunity to present my case before NASA and Congress, I might offer a more well-thought-out explanation. But right now, “because it would be awesome” should suffice.
Because it's a mostly unexplored corner of our solar system. The Voyagers were survey probes: they saw glimpses of a lot of interesting things, but couldn't stick around and solve any of the hard mysteries. (For example, just what is going on with the weather on both Uranus and Neptune? It's weird!) Orbiters such as Galileo, Juno, and Cassini are able to stick around long enough to do deep science.
Orbiters for one or both of our ice giants ought to be much higher on our space exploration priority lists than they seem to be.
> This (my) generation has been culturally conditioned against the idea of quitting a job
This is a super bizarre claim. Wealthy Googlers are afraid to quit their job because of their peers who make a fraction of their pay? We're talking about Silicon Valley workers and somehow they are more afraid to quit their job than the previous generations? A common job strategy is to change jobs every two to three years.
Yes, exactly - it is bizarre. Tech pays very well with no culture of corporate allegiance, yet this generation of skilled in-demand labor with (hopefully) sizable bank accounts does not exercise their economic freedom.
Why?
Maybe fear of radical change and lacking support from peers, or maybe unawareness of what labor resistance actually entails... or, cynically, that their beliefs are spineless social posturing... but I couldn't think of any flattering reasons to walk-out then stay.
haven't been able to look through this or the linked video i'm giving but its tim baldridge showing a new language and mentioning collapsing tower of interpreters.
I read that message to mean clojure/core.[library] and not clojure.core. It's a criticism of the slower development pace and low visibility that libraries like match, logic, combinatorics, test.check, data.zip, rrb-vector, cache, etc. have.
The author can clarify but if that's the critique its not without at least some merit.
Yes, this is part of it (although I do include things like core.async, reducers/transducers etc in that). A lot of Clojure feels like a bunch of thesis projects tacked together and abandoned. Most of it was quite innovative and cool at the time, but it's not being iterated or elaborated on. That's nobody's problem, really, I just happen to find it frustrating.
I'd almost be encouraged by the rework going into spec if it wasn't happening at such a glacial pace.
Yes, if your tsconfig is sufficiently permissive it will simply give any imports for which it can't find a type definition the 'any' type and assume that you can do anything you like with them. Obviously this doesn't give you any help from the type checker but it will work fine and you can go back and add typings later when you decide you need them.
RT's value prop has never been "a good score indicates a technically/artistically good film". It's just "how'd the critics we track like the movie?"
If it's over 80%, I can reasonably assume I'll enjoy it. If it's below 30%, I should probably figure out if it fits my particular "critically panned but I'd love it" quirks before shelling out $15 for a theater outing.
