You're viewing a single thread.
When I get helper functions from stack overflow or similar, I normally add a comment with a link to the article, mostly for my own sake so if there's any problems later I can re-read the article to get more info, or use it to try and find other solutions.
You’re supposed to do that anyway. Code on SO is licensed as CC BY-SA, which requires attribution.
Code on SO since 2016 is MIT https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/285711/source-code-on-stack-overflow-cc-by-sa-or-mit
The links from that post and top comment point out that that initiative was dropped. It got mired down in bikeshedding from hundreds of opinions and SO eventually just said, "Fuck it."
The MIT announcement thread was edited with the cancellation announcment:
Update: January 15, 2016
Thank you for your patience and feedback. The changes proposed here have been delayed indefinitely - we'll be back later to open some more discussions.
The top comment from your link points out the current license:
TL;DR: Source code on SO is still licensed under CC-BY-SA.
And CC BY-SA is the only license listed on the official help page.
- Content contributed before 2011-04-08 (UTC) is distributed under the terms of CC BY-SA 2.5.
- Content contributed from 2011-04-08 up to but not including 2018-05-02 (UTC) is distributed under the terms of CC BY-SA 3.0.
- Content contributed on or after 2018-05-02 (UTC) is distributed under the terms of CC BY-SA 4.0.
I used to do that on complete copy and paste parts.
Now we aren't allowed to do so. If stackoverflow.com is used you have to adjust the answer so that in court your code will not be a copy. They are afraid of users licenseing their code afterward.
For JS shit I usually have to rewrite them because they aren't production quality in terms of readability. Still really useful for getting answers on obscure stuff
The quality is definitely varying, the hardest part is to find a example that fits what you expect, or looks like it can be refactored into what you need.