db-interface
Joined 3 years ago
Joined 3 years ago
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.
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.
> 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.
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?
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 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.
> 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.
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.