rimunroe

9 ms·

91.
by rimunroe 1y ago
Newborns are often basically potatoes and relatively easy to travel with
92.
by rimunroe 1y ago
> It’s a distinction without a difference. That difference matters quite a bit if you're specifically arguing about how people who are going to fly get to experience said flight. [Edit] If you don't believe that parents have as
93.
by rimunroe 1y ago
> I don’t think it does. Let me know if this is an unfair summarization, but the way I see it: my comments discussed how charging parents additional fees to sit near their infants is bad. Your comment proposed charging people who wanted
94.
by rimunroe 1y ago
I assume this is a somewhat flippant/sarcastic response, but it completely ignores the gist of the message (well, multiple messages) you're replying to. > I say this as a parent who pays for assigned seats because we choose to
95.
by rimunroe 1y ago
> Or we can treat people equally and not discriminate based on whether or not they have kids Society has to treat parents differently because children are necessary for society to continue. If you make being a parent sufficiently burde
96.
by rimunroe 1y ago
> Flying is a luxury. You appear to have since edited your comment, but the version I replied to referred to being able to choose a seat as the luxury, not flying itself. As I've said elsewhere, flying is either a straight up ne
97.
by rimunroe 1y ago
As I said elsewhere in the thread there are situations where it's not a luxury. A bigger point though is that it's an additional burden on parents for something childless people simply don't need to deal with. Childless peopl
98.
by rimunroe 1y ago
You're free to argue people shouldn't expect to be able to go on vacation once in a while or see family. However, not only do I think that's absurd but it doesn't address my other examples.
99.
by rimunroe 1y ago
> Then pay the extra money to choose your seat like most adults do. It's an additional expense which isn't a luxury for parents. You can't sit far from an infant for 6+ hours because they need close attention. Also, some
100.
by rimunroe 1y ago
I can imagine! I'm just speaking of my kid in this current week. By next week she'll be offering us a completely different traveling experience
101.
by rimunroe 1y ago
I'd rather it be solely a problem of their profits rather than adding inconvenience to families as well. Also, my kid is going to be a lot happier and less likely to be upset and bother everyone else if both of us are there to entertai
102.
by rimunroe 1y ago
A small correction, but there are plenty of reasons someone might require flying. The travel might be required and also be on a tight schedule or terrain might be impractical to traverse by other methods. As an example: a friend of mine had
103.
by rimunroe 1y ago
Yes, just like other people need to. Families move. Families are spread out. Families go on vacation. We traveled so my only remaining grandparent could meet her great granddaughter before she dies, which could be any day now. Do you think
104.
by rimunroe 1y ago
Flying with babies (and other young children) presents challenges which "everyone else" doesn't have to deal with. Babies and children need much more attention. Babies are much more likely to throw tantrums, to feel pain from
105.
by rimunroe 1y ago
I don't understand this attitude. Tests are important parts of the codebase. Poorly written tests are a frequent source of headaches in my experience, either by encoding incorrect assumptions, lying about what they're testing, giv
106.
by rimunroe 1y ago
Others have already pointed out some of the obvious issues with your reasoning, but I'd like to add that improving bike and pedestrian infrastructure can actually make it easier for motorists by reducing the number of vehicles on the
107.
by rimunroe 1y ago
> When I was growing up, it was extremely common for left wing artists to rework and subvert corporate art. For as long as there has been corporate art there have been artists and activists subverting it. Before corporate art, the same t
108.
by rimunroe 1y ago
> Edit: apparently HN readers are unaware that there's a viral belief going around that the Rapture is happening between Tuesday and Wednesday of this week. While it's certainly being talked about a lot on TikTok, but I'
109.
by rimunroe 1y ago
> For one, running an effect on every render and running it whenever referenced variables change are two very different behaviors and not universally interchangeable. Yes, of course. That's why it's recommended as a first step
110.
by rimunroe 1y ago
> In that case we could just as well omit it by default and only have users define it when they want something different. I believe the official recommendation since hooks were announced is to omit the array unless you need it. It make
111.
by rimunroe 1y ago
What Israel is doing is reprehensible, but you're promoting a classic antisemetic myth: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_libel
112.
by rimunroe 1y ago
I'm not sure why you think you're disagreeing as my entire comment was explicitly about how the issues people blame on hooks existed before, but that hooks changed how they were presented/encountered. I literally began it wit
113.
by rimunroe 1y ago
> You could work around this by memoing every inline function definition, but at that point, what are we even talking about. This is a normal part of optimizing React components and the exact reason for the React compiler’s existence.
114.
by rimunroe 1y ago
Sorry, what’s the pedantic part of this? I don’t think I’m understanding what you mean by that word here. Do you mean that the information isn’t useful? This page is explaining the process React takes when rendering, the general version of
115.
by rimunroe 1y ago
What's the condition in which you're trying to focus that input? Usually you're doing that in response to some sort of user action, in which case the time to handle that is within an event handler. > And the idea is (I ass
116.
by rimunroe 1y ago
The source code for hooks when they were initially released was actually really straightforward too. It's been many years since I've read through other parts of the source code though.
117.
by rimunroe 1y ago
> pedantic docs Are you referring to something in particular here? I've had my issues with the docs in the past, but I don't think I'd describe any of them being related to pedantry.
118.
by rimunroe 1y ago
> Hooks addressed class component pain but introduced new kinds of complexity: dependency arrays, stale closures, and misused effects. Even React’s own docs emphasize restraint: “You Might Not Need an Effect”. Server Components improve t
119.
by rimunroe 1y ago
> Which still isn't much, conpared to if everyone cared. This is yet another blind assertion. Please give details about how it isn't being paid attention to much. > Compare either to modern variants. Who maintains the F-35?
120.
by rimunroe 1y ago
> Show me, you say. Prove it. But this is of course unreasonable, for this is not my field, and I am clearly giving my opinion. This is kinda my point. You don’t seem to be coming at this from a position of much experience in the field b

More ›