I am! It's my first HTMX project but I am liking it so far. HTMX has a few quirks which it took me a while to understand, but since then it has worked pretty well -- the amount of HTMX "code" I've had to write is quite small compared to the amount of JS I'd normally have to write.
My main takeaways have been:
- It mostly just works and simplifies things, but:
- Working with page state (in my case, which sheet is loaded) in individual requests (like updating a cell) is a bit awkward -- you can either supply it via `hx-vals` or via setting a global hidden input which is specified via `hx-include`. I ended up going with the second approach due to https://github.com/bigskysoftware/htmx/issues/1119 but it's not perfect -- in particular you need to duplicate specifying the input if you want to include additional inputs for some node.
- Error handling is also a bit awkward, but it's not too bad once you get used to the idea that you should return HTML elements in 400s. I found https://htmx.org/extensions/response-targets/ helpful as well.
- Often HTML structure doesn't allow you to limit your request scope as much as you'd like. For me the big thing is I can't just replace one column since tables are row-major -- I have to replace the whole table if a column is modified.
While I don't agree with all of the framing in the NYT story, it's worth noting that Scott Alexander was much friendlier to Moldbug et. al. than the anti-Metz camp argued at the time: https://twitter.com/ArsonAtDennys/status/1362153191102677001
I think Metz's motivation for that framing was his assumption that if SA was not at least sympathetic to NRx views, he would not allow them to be such a big voice in his comments and in his community. You can argue about the reasonableness of this assumption, but he did turn out to be right.
alexander is the guy who wrote the 30,000 word anti-reactionary faq about why moldbug was wrong, though; those screenshots explain in detail why he was unsympathetic to their neoreactionary views, rather than demonstrating that he was sympathetic to them
he does say some things there that are entirely outside the pale and that he should have known better than, but sad to say, those particular beliefs aren't limited to neoreactionaries
I don't mean to say that he was a closet NRx -- and IMO neither did Metz imply that -- just that he agreed with a much larger subset of their controversial views than he or his allies admitted publicly. I would consider that being "sympathetic" to NRx.
If you believe that differences in behaviours between groups of humans are significantly explained by genetic variation (which is supported by the evidence to some degree), and that those genetic variations align along racial lines (which really isn't), what do you think that entails on social outcomes between racial groups?
In them he says "HBD is probably partially correct" -- do you think that's not a NRx view (I agree others also hold it, but I would argue that it's a core view of NRx -- it doesn't need to be exclusive to them, e.g. Islam considers Jesus a prophet too), or that he publicly held that position previously?
If you view some races as generally "less useful" than others, most people would consider that racist regardless of whether you think they should enjoy the same rights.
I spent a lot of time on SSC from 2013 to 2017, and my recollection is that the Venn diagram of commenters promoting HBD and those promoting RDx was nearly a circle. And similarly for related sites like LW. So in that context I would say the two are closely related.
I find it hard to believe you've been exposed to much NRx content if you don't think they consider HBD true and very important. Although don't take that as a criticism -- I would not recommend wading through their beliefs and look back on it as a waste of my time.
i read through most of moldbug's blog, and also knew his name and rhetorical style from crooked timber comments. possibly he was less racist than his followers? or just more circumspect about it. in any case, he attempted to justify his anti-liberal philosophy, at quite extreme length, but never on the basis of racism; so if racism was a core belief of his neoreactionary thought, it was apparently at a subconscious level
i remained unpersuaded in any case, steadfastly liberal
also, much to my surprise, he and i were both members of the first coworking space at spiral muse house in san francisco in 02006. but i didn't go very often, so i don't know if i ever met him; in any case that was before he revealed his identity
I guess I am much less familiar with Moldbug's stated views than you, so I'm happy to concede that point.
Anyway, I think the HBD/NRx relationship is peripheral to the discussion of the Metz article -- I just framed it that way because that's the context of Scott's emails (certainly he think's they're at least associated!). The discourse around the Metz article was that it framed Scott as holding racist views, not specifically NRx views.
If I had mentioned Steve Sailer instead of NRx, would you agree that Scott was more sympathetic to those views than he publicly let on?
This is straightforward guilt-by-association: because of the mere fact that Scott interacted with people espousing neo reactionary views, he must also be sympathetic to those views. Of course, this is completed wrong and easily known by reading Scotts writings on the topic: https://slatestarcodex.com/2013/10/20/the-anti-reactionary-f...
There is zero way to say in good faith the Scott espouses or even agrees with neo reactionism.
I said he was "sympathetic to NRx views" and linked emails from him stating certain views widely held by Moldbug et. al. that he is sympathetic to. Do you disagree that "HBD" is an NRx view, or that the leaked emails express sympathy for it?
Human biodiversity is an empirical fact. Are some populations taller than other, on average? Is red hair more prevalent in certain populations? Pretty much nobody actually rejects the idea of human biodiversity.
The neo reactionary types tend to draw specific conclusions from the idea of human biodiversity, like that racial disparities in IQ are inherent and not environmental. That's a conclusion I don't think is in line with Scott's views.
Furthermore, I suggest you read the linked emails in more detail. He likes the emphasis reactionaries put on social class, and dislikes
... pretty much everything else. He explicitly states that becoming a reactionary is stupid - I'm not sure how that's meant to be read as sympathetic.
This is another case where praising even a small component of a particular movement, even when paired with explicit condemnation of the movement as a whole, is taken as an endorsement.
When Moldbug says HBD, he isn't saying "not all humans have exactly the same genes". HBD has a specific meaning in that context and the meaning is that some races are superior to others. That is specifically what Moldbug says when he talks about HBD, and SSC's author knows that well.
I don't doubt that Yarvin has racist views. I do take issue with people insisting that Scott agrees with Yarvin by mere virtue of association, despite the Scott's clear explicit refutations of neo reactionaries.
Scott's (partial) agreement with Yarvin is not from association, it's from him saying that he thinks HBD is at least partially correct, in a discussion with Yarvin where HBD means racial supremacy.
> Human biodiversity is an empirical fact. Are some populations taller than other, on average? Is red hair more prevalent in certain populations? Pretty much nobody actually rejects the idea of human biodiversity.
> The neo reactionary types tend to draw specific conclusions from the idea of human biodiversity, like that racial disparities in IQ are inherent[...]
This is a classic motte-and-bailey. The IQ view is clearly the view that he is endorsing in the emails -- he is linking Steve Sailer's blog under "HBD is probably partially correct", and he even demands the recipient "NEVER TELL ANYONE I SAID THIS" -- obviously he's not talking about height.
Again, you're drawing very explicit conclusions from a few sentences. Racial disparities in IQ are indeed observed, but it's highly contentious over whether these are due to environmental factors like education and nutrition or inherent. That Asians have score higher IQs on average than whites in the US is an empirical observation. But it's also known that IQ can be increased by studying, and Asians study about twice as much as white people in childhood [1].
Scott is acknowledging that the taboo to even recognize these disparities is counterproductive: it stymied attempts to improve schooling or studying practices, because it's taboo to even recognize that there is a difference and instead people typically allege that the tests are biased. Would Scott argue that with identical environmental factors we'd still see the same disparities in IQ across ethnic groups? I don't think so, and nothing in the emails linked seem to suggest this.
If your contention is that we should more frankly discuss IQ disparities, pretending we're talking about height was a strange way to go about it.
In those emails, SA does not say he thinks these questions deserve more study -- he says they're "probably partially true". Again, in that context he's talking about Steve Sailer's views.
Yes, I'm focusing on a few sentences. Do you think he wrote those by accident? That the words came out wrong and the straightforward reading was not his intent? In the context of the rest of his emails, and his writing on e.g. Albion's Seed, I do not think that is likely.
Albion's seed is pretty much entirely focused on culture, laws, and institutions, not genetics. I'm not sure how this is supposed to be related to human biodiversity at all.
And on a final note, I'd suggest you read the last paragraph of the screenshotted email chain, where Scott explains how it's valuable to read creationist arguments it forces him to sharpen his thinking.
> You never realize how LITTLE you know about evolution until you read some Behe and are like, "I know this correct... But why not?".
> Even if there turns out to be zero value in any a Reactionary has ever said, by challenging beliefs of mine that would otherwise never be challenged they have forced me to clarify my thinking and up my game.
I really think you've lost the forest for the trees here. Scott is praising certain parts of reactionary ideas for asserting things most people wouldn't argue, and those interactions are leading him to sharpen his thinking.
This is obtuse. I didn't make any argument about SA reading the same stuff NRx read, or even reading NRx stuff. I linked SA's own writing that "Many of their insights seem important" and that their views have "nuggets of absolute gold".
"nuggets of gold" implies that the bulk of it is not gold. If reference someone, saying even a broken clock is right twice a day is that really an endorsement?
As I mentioned in a sibling comment, the contention I intend to make is that he agrees more with the racial views of his NRx commenters than he publicly let on. That was the framing of the NYT article -- nobody thinks or would be incensed to learn that SA is a Neo-Monarchist or any of the other NRx beliefs that are orthogonal to modern US political discourse.
If you don't think racial IQ disparities are a significant part of NRx thought, fine, you're probably better positioned to know and I am happy to concede the point. In that case, a better comparison would be to Steve Sailor's views. I only mentioned NRx because that is the context of his emails, and I had not recognized that he was linking to Steve Sailor's blog.
No, I don't think he agrees with neo reactionaries any more than he let on. In his public posts he has praised reactionaries for making observations that most shirk away from, even if they are wrong in their conclusions. This is pretty much what is expressed in the contents of those emails.
I think you're reading way too much into one sentence saying human biodiversity is partially correct (which is not actually a particularly contentious idea when you explain what it is), and leaping to the conclusion he agrees with neo reactionary claims that some races have substantially lower IQ even with identical environmental factors. There's a vast disparity between "IQ disparities across races" and "IQ disparities across races, without environmental differences" that is crucial to understand.
unfortunately i don't think neoreactionary views are at all orthogonal to the political discourse that is current in the usa; moldbug has his own variant of the 'cultural marxism' thesis, though naturally enough he doesn't blame it on the jews or the frankfurt school; instead, he picks the quakers, which i mostly agree with (except that of course i agree with the quakers)
his criticism is squarely directed at the mainstream us left that he grew up in and its core ideals, such as equality, human rights, pacifism, fighting injustice, etc. he thinks all those are bad things
The link you cite says it was worse in the Rust version:
> During the audit, it came to light that the original sudo implementation was also affected by [CLN-001: relative path traversal vulnerability], although with a lower security severity due to their use of the openat function.
> Especially so since their wages haven't gone up comparably to match.
The economic data indicates that average income has gone up more than prices have since the start of the pandemic. If you look at Real Personal Income (https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/RPI) it's up 5% relative to the end of 2019.
Yes, public opinion is irrational, but the more obvious political question is why public opinion is so wrong now, when often it is not so pessimistic about the economy.
To that I would say there is likely a problem with average. I didn't see a break down of the data in your link, but admittedly its my lunch break and I didn't have the time to really dig for it either. But its entirely possible that some groups saw an outsized growth in wages while others didn't.
Apples to apples here -- the 2020 GT Premium was $43,315. So we're still not looking at nearly the same size of increase.
You think the average income is being computed incorrectly? Or that there is just a lot of variance so many people are worse off? It is true that wage increases have been uneven, but they are actually much larger at the low end -- this is why you see the most inflation in low-wage service-heavy categories like restaurants.
Unfortunately I could not find data on prices after discounts -- I would love if you could point me to some! I find it hard to believe the average discount in 2019/20 was $8k off on a base trim GT, but if you actually bought one with that discount then fair enough. Note that's still a significantly smaller increase than my parent comment indicated.
My main takeaways have been:
- It mostly just works and simplifies things, but:
- Working with page state (in my case, which sheet is loaded) in individual requests (like updating a cell) is a bit awkward -- you can either supply it via `hx-vals` or via setting a global hidden input which is specified via `hx-include`. I ended up going with the second approach due to https://github.com/bigskysoftware/htmx/issues/1119 but it's not perfect -- in particular you need to duplicate specifying the input if you want to include additional inputs for some node.
- Error handling is also a bit awkward, but it's not too bad once you get used to the idea that you should return HTML elements in 400s. I found https://htmx.org/extensions/response-targets/ helpful as well. - Often HTML structure doesn't allow you to limit your request scope as much as you'd like. For me the big thing is I can't just replace one column since tables are row-major -- I have to replace the whole table if a column is modified.