Sylvana Simons, inspirerend talkshowgast die direct aan tafel moet als er weer eens iemand een verkeerd woord heeft gebruikt, verkeerd heeft gekeken of raar heeft gefloten, is ineens de coulance zelve als het gaat om Donald Pols. Donald Pols gebruikte echter geen verkeerd woord (oké gebruikte vroeger mogelijk wel 'blank'), keek niet verkeerd en floot niet raar, maar zat bij een extreemrechtse studentenclub in Zuid-Afrika ten tijde van de apartheid. Sylvana Simons denkt dat Pols' verhaal juist heel inspirerend kan zijn. Want ja, hij is uiteindelijk toch 'goed' geworden. Daarom kan het heel inspirerend zijn dat hij geen idee had wat het Odal-rune-symbool betekende, kan het heel inspirerend zijn dat hij zijn strijd tégen de afschaffing van apartheid jarenlang verzweeg maar het in eerdere interviews wel deed voorkomen alsof-ie altijd al kritisch was op het systeem, kan het heel inspirerend zijn dat dit verhaal al een jaar op de plank lag maar pas naar buiten werd gebracht toen hij bij Tata aan de slag ging, kan het heel inspirerend zijn dat Milieudefensie dat verleden in de doofpot stopte terwijl Pols daar toen al 6 jaar directeur was en kan het heel inspirerend zijn dat hij directeur communicatie zou worden bij Tata Steel terwijl hij tegenover NRC nog heel inspirerend toegeeft: "De commotie die zijn overstap naar Tata veroorzaakte had hij niet voorzien." Ja bij dit verhaal denk je echt meteen: INSPIREREND.
wing of kaz has added a photo to the pool:
鹿児島県鹿屋市、かのやばら園 / Kanoya Rose Garden, Kanoya City, Kagoshima Prefecture
By Gallup's measure, acceptance of LGBTQ people – at an all-time high four years ago – has fallen every year since as public approval of LGBTQ+ legal protections recedes and transgender rights become a culture-war flashpoint. The political shift has spilled over into the broadly supportive corporate world, which – despite a track record of backing the nation's LGBTQ+ population – shrank Pride Month budgets, flashed fewer rainbow flags and downplayed solidarity amid the "go woke go broke" backlash against Target and Bud Light and pressure from activists to roll back LGBTQ+ commitments.2026 State LGBTQ+ Business Climate Index (pdf) - "Eight years ago, Out Leadership set out to measure something the corporate world had never quantified: what it actually feels like to live LGBTQ+ in each U.S. state, and what that lived experience costs the businesses operating there. The framework was built on a premise that has only sharpened with time. The laws, courts, and political climates that shape an LGBTQ+ person's daily life are the same forces that shape where companies can recruit talent, retain executives, win contracts, and keep their people safe. The Index measures both at once, year after year, so leaders and lawmakers can see what their decisions actually cost — in dollars, in talent, and in lives."
Frank suspected something odd when he spotted a use of React's useMemo function in some JavaScript code. Now, there's nothing wrong with using that method, in and of itself. It watches some variables and recalculates a callback if they change for any reason. It's a great tool for when you want to avoid recalculating expensive things over and over again.
But in this case, the calculation in question was isAuthorized, which wasn't an expensive calculation; it was just checking if certain values are set. The code looked like this:
const isAuthorized = useMemo(() => {
return (session && token && !group) === false;
}, [session, token, group]);
session, token and group are all either going to be null, or be an object. To be authorized, all three must be set to non-null values. A rational person, knowing this, might choose to return session && token && group, and exploit JavaScript's truthiness. Or, if you really wanted to coerce it to a boolean, you could return !!(session && token && group).
So why on Earth are they negating group? How would this even work? If the check is "all three must be set" what is this doing?
Well, if you do a && b && c, JavaScript will return the last value you looked at. The && operator short circuits, so that means it either returns the first falsy value you encounter, or the very last value in the chain.
So in this scenario: (session && token && !group), if session or token is null, the expression evaluates to null. Otherwise, if group is null, then !group will evaluate to true. Because they use the === operator, JavaScript won't do any type coercion, and that means null === false is false, as is true === false.
I can't believe that this code works as intended. I mean, it works, it gives the correct output, but I think that's an accident. Happenstance of someone with no clue gradually throwing operators into an expression until it does what they want. Perhaps it's LLM generated code- who can even guess anymore? It certainly seems like it was generated through a stochastic process; whether that's a bumbling developer or a bunch of math, there's definitely no intelligence involved, artificial or otherwise.