24 Matching Annotations
  1. Sep 2021
  2. Aug 2021
  3. Jul 2021
    1. Prof Nichola Raihani on Twitter: “Submitted a paper reporting null results to a mid tier journal. Guess how it went. I literally don’t care at this point but I do feel bad for the first author (who I won’t name here). Https://t.co/sX5lTcEl29” / Twitter. (n.d.). Retrieved July 16, 2021, from https://twitter.com/nicholaraihani/status/1415308025179656194

  4. Jun 2021
  5. Mar 2021
    1. // WRONG ❌ - values.myField might be undefined! if (!values.myField.match(/myexpression/)) {
    2. If you are doing a regular expression check, your function should handle undefined as a potential value.
  6. Feb 2021
    1. There are times where it is useful to know whether a value was passed to run or the result of a filter default. In particular, it is useful when nil is an acceptable value.

      Yes! An illustration in ruby:

      main > h = {key_with_nil_value: nil}
      => {:key_with_nil_value=>nil}
      
      main > h[:key_with_nil_value]
      => nil
      
      main > h[:missing_key]  # this would be undefined in JavaScript (a useful distinction) rather than null, but in Ruby it's indistinguishable from the case where a nil value was actually explicitly _supplied_ by the caller/user
      => nil
      
      # so we have to check for "missingness" ("undefinedness"?) differently in Ruby
      
      main > h.key?(:key_with_nil_value)
      => true
      
      main > h.key?(:missing_key)
      => false
      

      This is one unfortunate side effect of Ruby having only nil and no built-in way to distinguish between null and undefined like in JavaScript.

  7. Sep 2020
  8. Aug 2020
    1. That's exactly why I use xargs -0 in conjunction with find -print0. The latter prints filenames with a NUL terminator and the former receives files that way. Why? Filenames in Unix can contain newline characters. But they cannot contain NUL characters.
  9. Mar 2020
    1. . However, the data did not support a meresimilarity effect: Our results were robust to controlling for partic-ipants’ own moral judgments, such that participants who made adeontological judgment (the majority) strongly preferred a deon-tological agent, whereas participants who made a consequentialistjudgment (the minority) showed no preference between the two

      But this is a lack of a result in the context of a critical underlying assumption. Yes, the results were 'robust', but could we really be statistically confident that this was not driving the outcome? How tight are the error bounds?

  10. Nov 2019
    1. Null Components should never have children - they'd never be rendered.
    2. Aligning closely with the <Injector_ > naming convention, Null Components are denoted with a prefix and postfix _ (e.g. <_NullComponent_ />).
    3. The idea is that the additional prefix _ of a Null Component symbolizes that it adds even less to the DOM than an Injector. I picture the name falling through to become just the _, like the unused argument convention in javascript functions: const handleEvent = (_, id) => { console.log(id) } .
  11. Oct 2019
  12. Aug 2019
  13. Jun 2018