simply adding required is all you need.Not required=true The omission is equal to required=false. No one really write required=true, they just add the attribute `required` only by its self. This is one of the odd quarks about html attrs
> The strings "true" and "false" are invalid values. To set the attribute to false, the attribute should be omitted altogether. Though modern browsers treat any string value as true, you should not rely on that behavior.
in other words required=false may still end up making the field required. FYI.
They've used `required={true}`, not `required="true"`, which is JSX, not HTML. The one with curlies isn't even valid HTML. In the old HTML spec, the correct value, if you wanted to set a value, was to set `required="required"`, but these days the spec is looser since it tries to conform to the web, not the other way around.
Even in jsx its not required to add a boolean value. Unless you are passing in a var as a prop in which case sure. But that didn't look like it was the case in these examples.
> Even in jsx its not required to add a boolean value
Absolutely true! But I like to do it because I personally think it reads more nicely and is more explicit and that's what I do in all my projects. But it is indeed a matter of taste and I have nothing against code that follows the convention to omit the "true" value.
Honest question: do we have any idea of the biological impact of these? If they can jack circuits then I would assume its not super healthy either. 100x MRI scans all at once?
>Honest question: do we have any idea of the biological impact of these?
Probably not too much[0], although some folks claim[1] that an increase in cardiovascular events (myocardial infarctions and the like) are increased[1] during geomagnetic storms.
It amuses me how you choose to frame this person selectively only pointing out the issues you feel relevant while ignoring the whole picture.
Lets start from the beginning. When most of these people are looking for a job in the first place even if they have a long standing history most of these jobs put them through a typical 8 hour long interview complete with cognitive tests. They put all the responsibility of success on the employee from the start even as early as the interview.
Then when you get the job the on boarding. OH god the on boarding...
Most of these places expect that just because you have X or Y on your resume that you know inside and out their snow flake application which of the current staff their lead has typically turned over once a year and is so burned out they are the worst person to even offer help because they are toxic.
Then you get the constant pivoting. Management: We going to start out by doing two week sprints, one week in, we are going to switch to one week sprints. And after that, management wants to try kanbon all the while bugging about your KPIs
Say you manage to make it past that first 6 months. You realize that the next 6 months are going to be exactly as the last but worse because the lead toxic dev has just left and you are now the lead. Mean while they keep pivoting projects and goal posts but simultaneously asking you to do things that they have not even once tried to prepare for.
Finally you been there a year and most everyone who was there before you now is gone. And now you are the jaded burned out lead dev unwanting to go to meetings or be the person to tell the new devs how F'd everything is.
Also I've never once met a "scrum master" I liked. Just saying...
These companies and the people who run them don't care about you or what happens to you. They never did. This is exactly why I will always refuse to go above and beyond for a job, It's like a lottery only a few really get what they want in the end so your odds are better off just giving them only what they pay for.
If you are not your code then you are also not your job.
