This does not change if you write pure Javascript that directly mutates DOM without calling any intermediate functions.
Given the speed of rendering that browsers achieve, I would say that their call stack during this is highly optimized. I don't see OS doing much at all besides sending the drawing buffers to the GPU.
And also, that with React you are not only buying into React, but also a JavaScript dependency manager/package manager. Be it NPM, or any other. Installing JS package itself already comes with its own problems. And then probably people buy into more stuff to install through that package manager. Some component library and a "router" here, some material style and a little library to wrap the root node with some styling provider or what it is called there, ... before you know it, a typical FE dev will have turned your stack into 80% React and related dependencies and the maintenance on that will continue to grow, as new features "can be solved sooo easily, by just adding another dependency" from the NPM/React world.
Great solution but until then I think the gp's point still stands.
We as humans need to ensure our actions are done with care are forethought. You can't control others but you can control yourself and influence others (like this comment attempts to do)
Plus, it's a lot cheaper for all of us if we don't need to constantly redesign once someone figures out how to "beat the game" (see Goodhart's Law). We're social creatures and the Tragedy of the Commons is a much more common occurrence than people think, especially in large cities.
Yes, I've seen some of this. While it certainly helps, it seems like a waste of limited resources. Why can't some people just follow such a simple rule?
But the post saying it's a better method isn't suggesting extra labor to do modifications. That's useful just as pure knowledge, and also it can be applied into future designs or when parts of the road wear out.
A car could push into the first third of it, but visibility would be fine in that case. Trying to use the whole thing in a car would mean you're jutting into the traffic lane, and anyone willing to do that is causing bigger problems. And if a bike parks in the stripes that's fine for visibility too.
That study is small, observation based and controversial, and the researchers have data from a randomized follow up study that they have been keeping secret for the last 14 years. The coverage of the controversy has mostly been in Danish media, despite these hacks advising the current US administration. See https://www.sensible-med.com/p/the-false-narrative-of-nonspe... for a writeup in English.
And yet, this is a valid concern for any new drug - does it have a net positive benefit ? And can you guess why DTP was replaced by DTaP in the developed world, while people like Gates and orgs like GAVI are still promoting it in the third world ?
Not my field but just looking at that I see variations as big as the signal they are supposedly detecting. Looks an awful lot like noise.
And note that it's possible for a vaccine to have a negative survival benefit yet be a good idea--in a population with herd immunity a vaccine provides little benefit to those who receive it so long as enough people receive it to provide the herd immunity. But if too many don't get it the risk from not getting it goes up considerably. Look at what has been happening with measles--measles was basically unheard of, the quacks said not to vaccinate (remember, Wakefield was attacking a specific vaccine that he stood to profit from the controversy, Worm Brain doesn't believe in infectious disease in the first place), now we have people dying of measles.
> Other vaccines, for example DTP, have been shown to cause higher long term mortality rate
Sure. This one hasn’t.
That said, I frankly think people should be free to vaccinate as they please, and cities, states and private businesses free to include and exclude folks based on vaccination status as they please. (I’m also in favor of letting insurance companies choose if they want to cover diseases someone chose to get by going unvaccinated.)
That is exactly why we need to apply the precautionary principle for new drugs like this one.
> That said, I frankly think people should be free to vaccinate as they please
Never said they shouldn't be. Just need to be skeptical of organizations like GAVI and their PR, as they have a huge conflict of interest in promoting and profiting from these drugs.
