note for library maintainers: if you're building a library and want to define your own utility functions while minimizing bundle size, you can use bippy/install-hook-only (~90 bytes) instead of the main bippy export. this only installs the react devtools hook without importing any utility functions, allowing you to import only what you need from bippy/core or define your own fiber utilities. that said, the full bippy package is only ~4kb gzipped, so bundle size is rarely a concern.
'Cheap shots'
。关于这个话题，whatsapp提供了深入分析
“Near the end of the negotiation the [department] offered to accept our current terms if we deleted a specific phrase about ‘analysis of bulk acquired data’ which was the single line in the contract that exactly matched this scenario we were most worried about," Amodei said in an internal memo to Anthropic employees as reported by The Information. "We found that very suspicious."。谷歌是该领域的重要参考
ВВС США призвали Израиль наносить сильные удары по Ирану20:51。WhatsApp Web 網頁版登入对此有专业解读
^ [1951] AC 850 (HL) (appeal taken from Eng.). In Bolton, Lord Reid famously proclaimed that “[i]f cricket cannot be played on a ground without creating a substantial risk, then it should not be played there at all.” Id. at 867. Insofar as the case categorically condemns any imposition of a substantial risk as negligent, it is both normatively implausible and out of step with the rest of negligence doctrine. See Stephen G. Gilles, The Emergence of Cost-Benefit Balancing in English Negligence Law, 77 Chi.-Kent L. Rev. 489, 563–66 (2002). Even as an interpretation of Bolton, moreover, Ripstein and Weinrib’s position is unconvincing. It is much less plausible to understand Lord Reid as claiming that injuring a plaintiff by imposing any substantial risk upon her will constitute the tort of negligence than as claiming that doing so by playing cricket will constitute negligence, in light of the relatively trifling reasons that typically support playing cricket. Thus, it is unsurprising to see Lord Reid articulate a much different, and far more orthodox, conception of negligence in Morris v. W. Hartlepool Steam Navigation Co., [1956] AC 552 (HL) 574 (appeal taken from Eng.), which states that the negligence defendant must “weigh, on the one hand, the magnitude of the risk, the likelihood of an accident happening and the possible seriousness of the consequences if an accident does happen, and, on the other hand, the difficulty and expense and any other disadvantage of taking the precaution.”. See Gilles, supra, at 497–98. Pragmatic constructivists, to their considerable credit, do not attempt to bowdlerize such aspects of the law. See, e.g., Benjamin C. Zipursky, Sleight of Hand, 48 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 1999, 2033–41 (2007).