- Jan 2022
-
-
NODE_OPTIONS=--unhandled-rejections=none node
-
-
blog.atomist.com blog.atomist.com
-
My gut told me calling an async function from the setTimeout callback was a bad thing. Since the setTimeout machinery ignores the return value of the function, there is no way it was awaiting on it. This means that there will be an unhandled promise. An unhandled promise could mean problems if the function called in the callback takes a long time to complete or throws an error.
-
-
github.com github.com
-
Fundamentally, I think promise rejection is substantially different than "throwing" under normal synchronous flow.
-
const promise = Promise.reject(new Error("Something happened!")); setTimeout(async () => { // You want to process the result here... try { const result = await promise; console.log(`Hello, ${result.toUpperCase()}`) } // ...and handle any error here. catch (err) { console.error("There was an error:", err.message); } }, 100);
-
-
javascript.info javascript.info
-
we should have the unhandledrejection event handler (for browsers, and analogs for other environments) to track unhandled errors and inform the user (and probably our server) about them, so that our app never “just dies”.
-
What happens when a regular error occurs and is not caught by try..catch? The script dies with a message in the console. A similar thing happens with unhandled promise rejections.
-
-
thecodebarbarian.com thecodebarbarian.com
-
There are a lot of nasty gotchas with unhandled rejections. That's why Node.js gives you a mechanism for globally handling unhandled rejections.
-
- Nov 2021
-
psyarxiv.com psyarxiv.com
-
Minihan, S., Orben, A., Songco, A., Fox, E., Ladouceur, C. D., Mewton, L., Moulds, M., Pfeifer, J., Harmelen, A.-L. V., & Schweizer, S. (2021). Social Determinants of Mental Health During a Year of the COVID-19 Pandemic. PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/64v7x
-
- Sep 2021
-
journals.sagepub.com journals.sagepub.com
-
Rutjens, B. T., van der Linden, S., van der Lee, R., & Zarzeczna, N. (2021). A group processes approach to antiscience beliefs and endorsement of “alternative facts.” Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 24(4), 513–517. https://doi.org/10.1177/13684302211009708
-
- May 2021
-
www.politico.eu www.politico.eu
-
Russian vaccine’s hot streak is sputtering. (2021, May 12). POLITICO. https://www.politico.eu/article/russia-sputnik-coronavirus-covid-19-vaccine-hot-steak/
-
-
psyarxiv.com psyarxiv.com
-
Marques, M. D., Kerr, J., Williams, M., Ling, M., & McLennan, J. (2021). Associations Between Conspiracism and the Rejection of Scientific Innovations. PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/y9mnb
-
- Mar 2021
-
onlinelibrary.wiley.com onlinelibrary.wiley.com
-
Wilson, R. (2017). Reich, J.A.Calling the Shots: Why Parents Reject Vaccines. New York: New York University Press. 2016. 328pp £20.99 (hbk) ISBN 9781479812790. Sociology of Health & Illness, 39(5), 804–805. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9566.12541
-
- Jan 2021
-
www.tandfonline.com www.tandfonline.com
-
Özceylan, G., Toprak, D., & Esen, E. S. (2020). Vaccine rejection and hesitation in Turkey. Human Vaccines & Immunotherapeutics, 16(5), 1034–1039. https://doi.org/10.1080/21645515.2020.1717182
-
- Aug 2020
-
www.indiebound.org www.indiebound.org
-
Weird: The Power of Being an Outsider in an Insider World | IndieBound.org. (n.d.). Retrieved August 26, 2020, from https://www.indiebound.org/book/9780316418485
-
-
psyarxiv.com psyarxiv.com
-
Pierre, J. (2020). Mistrust and Misinformation: A Two-Component, Socio-Epistemic Model of Belief in Conspiracy Theories [Preprint]. PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/xhw52
-
- May 2020
-
twitter.com twitter.com
-
🔥Kareem Carr🔥 on Twitter: “In the midst of all this, I’ve learned something very big about the role of expertise in today’s world. It’s only welcome if it’s subordinate to the values and interests of the person to whom the advice is offered. Otherwise, it will be strongly rejected.” / Twitter. (n.d.). Twitter. Retrieved May 29, 2020, from https://twitter.com/kareem_carr/status/1265822204434026498
-
- Feb 2016
-
books.google.ca books.google.ca
-
43 Garvey Linn and Tomita 1972 discovered that almost 1/3 of authors who had a paper rejected had "abandoned the subject matter area of their articles" within a year (p. 214).
Garvey, William D., Nan Lin, and Kazuo Tomita. 1972. “Research Studies in Patterns of Scientific Communication: III. Information-Exchange Processes Associated with the Production of Journal Articles.” Information Storage and Retrieval 8 (5): 207–21. doi:10.1016/0020-0271(72)90031-9.
-
-
onlinelibrary.wiley.com.ezproxy.alu.talonline.ca onlinelibrary.wiley.com.ezproxy.alu.talonline.ca
-
On the cost rejected papers add to the peer review system (p. 119): "The cost to the academic community of refereeing was estimated by Tenopir and King in 1997 to be $480/article (based on an average time 3–6 hours per article by each of 2–3 referees). At 2004 levels this is approximately $540 per submitted article. Clearly,the percentage ofpapers which are rejected makes a difference to the over- all cost to the journal; in a reasonable quality journal at least 50% of papers will be rejected, while some top journals (e.g. Nature) may reject as many as 90%. Most articles get published somewhere, and as they work their way through the system, being refereed for different journals, they accumulate additional cost; indeed, it couldbe said that a poor (or, at least, inappropriately submitted) article costs the system much more overall than does a good one."
-