It's as much this as it is keeping discourse alive. A week of reaction and speculation on social media is just free advertising.

The former just seem like good politics: "states' rights" allowed slave owners to court people who were worried about "big government" while conveniently ignoring the grave injustice that's actually occurring. The latter seems like good twitter politics; it'll get good engagement for being so inflammatory, but at the end of the day, most people don't actually agree.

And the reason these things change is because that's what needed changing. One of the topline features of Svelte is that is has less boilerplate than React, and it achieves that quite handily. Unless you're criticizing particular constructs in Svelte that are unjustifiably different, I don't think unfamiliarity is that damning a criticism.

Maybe I'm just used to switching up languages on a regular basis, but the idea of having to learn different language constructs for loops and the like doesn't seem that herculean of a task.

      <ul>{myItems.map({id, title}) => 
          <li key={id}>{title}</li>
      }</ul>

     <ul>{#each myItems as item}
         <li>{item.title}</li>
     {/each}</ul>

By having it's own templating language, Svelte is able to compile the templates to JavaScript in a way that addresses many of those concerns in a way that I think it easier to deal with as an end user of the framework.

If Svelte were using JSX, I don't know that it'd be possible to do everything else that it does so simply because you can write anything that's valid JavaScript in JSX whereas Svelte has just a couple of basic control structures that its compiler can parse and convert to runnable code.

When property changes, the fetch refires, loading appears until the fetch resolves then it displays whatever array someFetch resolved to.

I came from Vue and that plus the way Svelte does stores (literally nothing special about them) was a breath of fresh air.

    <div>
        {#await someFetch(property)}
            <div>Loading...</div>
        {:then data}
        
            {#each data as item, index}
                <div>{item}</div>
            {/each}
    
        {/await}
    </div>

Then explain what hooks do ;)

Hooks are decidedly not Javascript (even if they look like Javascript), and are a much more weird construct than {#await promise}

Javascript has no support for array-based programming.

So, hooks are not Javascript: they look like regular function calls, but:

- they can only be declared and called before rendering

- they can't be called out of order

- they cannot be called conditionally

- they have to be called a specific name to be handled correctly by React runtime

- some (but not all of them) require dependency lists that determine how they are invoked

> {#await promise} is more cryptic than any useHook function implementation.

usEffect documentation is something like 20 pages long. The use of {#await promise} is immediately understandable from the code example, and its entire documentation fits on a page and a half

I completely agree that learning them is a bit crazy, but ultimately every hook comes down to being a function execution.

How come they break Javascript semantics and execution flow?

> but ultimately every hook comes down to being a function execution.

That's really beside the point when it comes to understand what something is and using them.

{#await promise} is immediately understandable from its use.

Hooks are... well, I already said above.

wait what? since when do they break execution flow and javascript semantics?!

useEffect(function () { }); when exactly do you think the function will be called? - correct only the "framework" defines that, but that's completly normal javascript execution and semantic.

With JSX you can use native JS features instead, you only need to know the language.

For example, instead of looking up how to loop in the template syntax, you use an iterator.

  div
    Await promise={mypromise}
      div Loading…
      {res => res.map(…)}
      div Error: {err => err.message}

Isn’t it easier in both react and vue to create Await component with children=(ifwaiting, ifresolved, ifrejected) than suffering all over the code?

Edit: I messed data flow up in the error handler, wontfix but you get the idea

That's a poor assumption that appears to be based on your personal preferences and what you're comfortable with. I personally find both require some learning, but prefer the svelte version.

This is already far more to learn than the handful of simple control structures Svelte introduces.

  <div className={red}>
    {text}
  </div>

  import react
  react.create_element("div", {"className":red}, text)

https://github.com/facebook/jsx

Example parser from Acorn:

https://github.com/acornjs/acorn-jsx/blob/master/index.js

No part of JSX uses the DOM, it doesn't share anything with HTML.

The JS engine itself would need the modification.

Also JSX doesn't have to be for the UI, it could be for dialogs for an NPC in a game, for configs, etc.

edit: I agree with @proxyon, I'm really disappointed with HN that this simple fact is downvoted without retort.

The common sentiment here is wrong, JSX is a small extension to the grammar of JS. It is JS.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECMAScript_for_XML

>ECMAScript for XML (E4X) is the standard ISO/IEC 22537:2006 programming language extension that adds native XML support to ECMAScript (which includes ActionScript, JavaScript, and JScript). The goal is to provide an alternative to DOM interfaces that uses a simpler syntax for accessing XML documents. It also offers a new way of making XML visible. Before the release of E4X, XML was always accessed at an object level. E4X instead treats XML as a primitive (like characters, integers, and booleans). This implies faster access, better support, and acceptance as a building block (data structure) of a program.

>E4X is standardized by Ecma International in the ECMA-357 standard. The first edition was published in June 2004, the second edition in December 2005.

>The E4X standard was deprecated by the Mozilla Foundation in 2014.

https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=695577#c1

>Mark S. Miller, 10 years ago

>"use strict" is currently our one real opt-in boundary for simplifying the language and reducing threats by dropping legacy complexity that is generally no longer needed. As Brendan said somewhere "E4X is crazyland", and FF's implementation of E4X deviates from the spec in ways that are not written down anywhere. Until we encountered this issues, it looked like SES could bring ocap security to ES5.1 without doing an accurate lex or parse. With this restriction, we could regain this economy.

>Besides, no one wants to upgrade the E4X semantics to be compatible with ES5 or ES.next, so this seems a good time to impose this opt-in restriction.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8266648

>bastawhiz on Sept 4, 2014 | parent | context | un‑favorite | on: JSX: XML-like syntax extension to ECMAScript – Dra...

>So..uh...this was a thing. And nobody wanted it. So it was deprecated and killed. See the "Prior Art" section at the bottom of the page.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECMAScript_for_XML

>Brendan Eich was quoted as saying something along the lines of "E4X is crazyland". Parsing it is hard as hell to do right. Think of all the tooling that's out there for JavaScript right now that will either a.) not support JSX code or b.) bloat up beyond belief as it takes into account the suddenly absurd requirements necessary to deal with a similar-but-not-quite-XML-or-even-HTML-for-that-matter syntax. Oh, you want to lint that JavaScript? Bless your heart! You want to add syntax highlighting? Love will find a way. You want to use other static analysis tools, sweet.js macros, or anything else non-trivial? How cute!

>So essentially, it's a great way for Facebook to push React.js without making React.js a standard.

https://stackoverflow.com/questions/33642820/why-was-e4x-dep...

>It was deprecated and removed from the only browser that ever supported it because it was a poorly implemented language feature that was causing all sorts of problems.

>As Brendan said somewhere "E4X is crazyland", and FF's implementation of E4X deviates from the spec in ways that are not written down anywhere. — Mark S. Miller

>The only way for it to come back would be via a new edition of ECMA-357, which Adobe and Mozilla were going to work on. Until then, it's out. — Brendan Eich

>The idea behind it wasn't bad, but the way it was integrated into the language was. SpiderMonkey was the only JS engine that ever implemented it, and there were endless problems caused by that and severe complications of the engine's implementation required for this support. — Till Schneidereit

The word 'each' conveys the intent of this code way more explicitly.

Repeating it over and over again does not make it true.

https://linkedlist.ch/jsx_is_not_just_javascript_39/

The author is wrong. Most of his statements are about React, not JSX.

It's syntactical sugar for nested function calls, that's all. Brackets are turned into function statements, attributes are turned into object props.

The author conflates React properties with JSX, which is wrong. The author also confused JSX limitations, you cannot do statements because it's a single expression.

Please go read the JSX spec instead of some random blog post.

https://github.com/facebook/jsx

That should have been the end of this discussion and fight that you picked about your incorrect statement that "JSX is JavaScript". You just unwittingly undermined and terminated your own argument by linking to the JSX spec itself, which clearly and explicitly says you are wrong, in BIG BOLD WORDS.

As JimDabel said, "They wanted to be 100% clear about it." So stop repeating something that the JSX designers so insistent is not true that they put it in bold at the top of their design specification.

You already won this argument, for the "JSX is NOT JavaScript" side. It's over.

In the semantics debate you want to have I think it is JS because it all becomes JS bytecode and it's just nested function calls in the end, but that's subjective. If you want to be pedantic it's a JS extension, but in the future it could be JS if the spec is merged into engines not the compilers.

JS is an umbrella term, you're arguing it's not Ecmascript, okay, I never said that. I said it's JS, and you want to have a tussle about it instead of comparing templating systems.

Also you're very rude.

> JSX is an XML-like syntax extension to ECMAScript without any defined semantics. It's NOT intended to be implemented by engines or browsers. It's NOT a proposal to incorporate JSX into the ECMAScript spec itself. It's intended to be used by various preprocessors (transpilers) to transform these tokens into standard ECMAScript.

Further down:

> Why not just use that instead of inventing a syntax that's not part of ECMAScript?

It is not JavaScript.

It's syntactical sugar, unlike template syntax #if, ng-if, etc.

Your argument is it's not part of the current Ecmascript spec, I never said it was, but if a parser or engine adds these two new PrimaryExpressions and attributes, it is JS.

The entire point is JSX extends JS to allow templating via nested JS functions w/ pretty brackets instead of creating an entire templating system.

Under your reasoning nothing that isn't in the current accepted Ecmascript spec implemented by browsers is JS. Does that mean decorators aren't JS? Were async functions not JS before they were in browsers?

If you want to go around telling people it’s a non-standard extension to JavaScript or if you want to go around telling people it’s a superset of JavaScript, then by all means do that. But it is simply not JavaScript. Why do you insist on saying otherwise? All that does is start completely pointless arguments. What do you gain from insisting it is JavaScript when it isn’t?

The point is this small extension to JS grammar lets you do templating with normal JS, instead of #for you can use .forEach, .map and other array methods.

You can use JS instead of replacing tokens in a template.

It's not a superset of JS, that's not accurate, it's an extension of the spec.

I hope the JSX spec is added to the standard sometime to stop this stupid debate.

Until you realize what JSX is you don't realize the full potential it has over templates.

If that’s the point, why are you telling people it’s JavaScript? You can make that point just fine without starting arguments.

Saying “This is an extension to JavaScript” is fine. Saying “This is JavaScript” starts arguments. What is your goal here?

> I hope the JSX spec is added to the standard sometime to stop this stupid debate.

But you are starting this stupid debate by telling people it’s JavaScript when it isn’t. If you are tired of people pointing this out when you call it JavaScript, why do you do it? There seems to be absolutely nothing to gain from that except “a stupid debate”.

> Until you realize what JSX is

I know what JSX is. I’ve written plenty of JSX.

> you don't realize the full potential it has over templates.

We are not talking about the value of JSX, merely whether it is JavaScript or not. JSX could cure cancer, but it still wouldn’t be JavaScript.

First, I say it's JS because it is. Just as decorators are JS. By being an extension of JS it is JS. The two are mutually inclusive.

Second, I didn't want to start an argument, I wanted to call out the very wrong blog post, how it referenced React not JSX, how the spec is an extension of JS, explain the limitations, etc. Until now it was more of a debate. Now it's a bit more of a semantics debate unfortunately.

> But you are starting this stupid debate by telling people it’s JavaScript when it isn’t. If you are tired of people pointing this out when you call it JavaScript, why do you do it? There seems to be absolutely nothing to gain from that except “a stupid debate”.

Actually if you go up the comment chain you'll see I didn't start this debate. If you're tired, just don't participate.

> We are not talking about the value of JSX, merely whether it is JavaScript or not. JSX could cure cancer, but it still wouldn’t be JavaScript.

Oh but we are, again if you go up the comment chain, it's being compared to Svelte's template system, that's how it got brought up, and that's usually why this topic gets brought up. You don't have to create a whole template system. You just use nested functions. To use pretty brackets it needs a small extension of the spec. You don't have to come up with a loop system, a conditional system, etc.

This is absurd. If JSX were JavaScript, JavaScript wouldn’t need to be extended to include JSX. The whole point of it being an extension is that JavaScript doesn’t include it, therefore JSX extends it. If JSX were JavaScript, then JavaScript wouldn’t need to be extended. The two are mutually exclusive.

> > We are not talking about the value of JSX, merely whether it is JavaScript or not. JSX could cure cancer, but it still wouldn’t be JavaScript.

> Oh but we are, again if you go up the comment chain

In the context of “Is JSX JavaScript?”, the value of JSX is irrelevant. Whether JSX is useless, useful, or amazing makes zero difference to the question of whether JSX is JavaScript or not.

You can still go around telling people JSX is great. It doesn’t have to be JavaScript for you to do that. People telling you that it isn’t JavaScript aren’t telling you that it’s worthless. They are just telling you that it isn’t JavaScript.

We're talking in circles a bit so I'd like to drill that down first.

When the feature isn't in all browsers and only Babel doesn't make it not JS, similar to how async functions were JS before being natively in JS engines.

You're not being genuine when you say decorators aren't JS. No one looks at Angular 2 and says "whoa that's using some foreign language mixed with JS", they say it's using a JS experimental feature.

I'll concede that it's not "JS" it's an "experimental JS feature", I'll use that in the future to avoid this pedantic debate.

You don’t see why something not being included in JavaScript doesn’t make it JavaScript? Really?

> I'll concede that it's not "JS" it's an "experimental JS feature"

JSX is not an experimental JS feature. You’re trying to draw an equivalence between decorators and JSX, but they aren’t equivalent at all.

Decorators were submitted for inclusion into JavaScript. They have undergone a lot of review to determine whether they belong in JavaScript, and people agreed they did. The specification has been refined to make them suitable for inclusion into JavaScript. Everybody plans on decorators becoming part of JavaScript. Browsers will implement decorators.

JSX, on the other hand, is explicitly not proposed for inclusion into JavaScript. The second and third sentences of the JSX specification read:

> It's NOT intended to be implemented by engines or browsers. It's NOT a proposal to incorporate JSX into the ECMAScript spec itself.

The second sentence is even bolded in the specification. They wanted to be 100% clear about it.

The standards committee isn’t reviewing JSX for suitability for inclusion into JavaScript. Nobody is planning on JSX becoming part of JavaScript. No browsers are planning on implementing JSX.

These are two entirely different situations. Decorators being on the cusp of becoming JavaScript does not mean that JSX is JavaScript.

Since he's working from his own definition of the word "is", and his own definition of the JavaScript standard, there's no way he's going to admit what he said is wrong, even though it is, and the JSX designers were 100% clear in their documentation about shooting down his mistaken idea that JSX is JavaScript.

Now that you've made that point, he's probably just going to try to derail and change the subject again, like he was just trying to do by diverting the discussion to decorators.

But then React is much more than just "small extension".

Hooks alone are less of a Javascript than any Svelte template syntax.

Svelte has a lot more going on than it's template language as well.

We're only comparing the templating system to JSX.

Special attributes, events, etc. are React specific and not related to JSX.

Basically it's a clean way to represent nested function calls, that's it. It has nothing to do with React nor does it need React.

<tag prop="value"/> gets turned into React.createElement('tag', {prop: "value"})

That's all. Period. The special props React introduces has nothing to do with JSX.

Also you can customize JSX to change the functions it generates. (i.e. swapping out React.createElement)

At this point the "is JSX just javascript" discussion has gone on a little to long imho. It feels like "is html a programming language". We all have strong convictions about the answer but it doesn‘t matter, really.

It‘s interesting that fans all of 3 frameworks constantly claim that it’s "just“ or "closer to vanilla" html or js. Should we really care anymore?

    const a = <div prop={expression()} />

   const a = factory('div', {prop: expression()}) 

[0] https://svelte.dev/tutorial/keyed-each-blocks

[1] https://reactjs.org/docs/lists-and-keys.html

Svelte bypasses the whole problem for the most part. https://youtu.be/AdNJ3fydeao?t=247

Keys are a hugely leaking abstraction, but are inevitable when you bridge a declarative immediate mode rendering into a stateful one.

I agree. As long as you understand the basic concepts, it's only a matter of learning the syntax, which is really not as big of a deal as the person you replied to is making it out to be.

We can have a debate on unidirectional data flow vs 2-way binding, how each framework manages state changes, how opinionated each framework is... How mature and vibrant each developer community is... etc. These are all another discussion though. My question is why must we reinvent the wheel again and again.

So you want all of these to be a universal-template-language - (D)HTML ?

You are a programmer, you will need to learn new syntax a few times in your career.

If some of the "biggest" complaints are "oh no I have to learn how to write for-loops again" - I guess svelte is doing the important stuff right.

Wayyyy back in the day(ok not that long ago - 80/90's) when I was learning a new lang (Pascal,C, C++) I used to tell myself If I can get an working example of:

1) "user-input (readline,scanf etc)"

2) "printing input/output"

3) "calling functions/procedures"

4) "Do the loops + conditionals"

5) "file I/O"

6) "Memory schematics"

You basically mastered the "building blocks/mrk(min-req-knowledge)" of the new lang and like maths you only need now practice or a good project.

TL;DR If you are a professional-career-programmer, learning "new syntax (we used to call them keywords)" is a requirement.

This comment had no context...

You don't have to even

    import React from 'react';

I'm not qualified enough in foreign affairs to justify the allusion to Putin or Erdogan, but let's not play this down either.

> What is the systemic racism measure for Canada vs US?

I don't understand this. Why do you want to measure against other countries, and why phrase it like you just want one number? Is it not enough to claim that certain inequalities appear in certain aspects of our society?

It would be like asking for a measure of our foreign policy. Sure, we could probably make one, but that seems like an entirely inadequate means of actually assessing what's happening in a complex sociological ecosystem. Our assessments have to be more individualized.

> That is his point, you can use that stick to beat anyone and anything you want without having to supply a shred of evidence. Just keep repeating it and call everyone who disagrees racist or Uncle Tom.

You can do that with anything though. I've heard all the same language used in Climate Change discourse: "well, if you don't think humans caused climate change, they'll just label you anti-science and beat you out of the discussion." This is just a blatant rhetorical tactic to shift discussion from about the actual problem—and indeed all the evidence that this problem has—to nebulous Twitter mobs.

[1] https://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article...

[2] https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2852856

For example blacks are much more likely to want to buy multi family homes. The income and other requirements for these are much stricter which is why they are denied loans more often.

Moreover, he points out that if blacks were being subject to stricter requirements then one would expect that they were less likely to default since the requirements are notionally to calculate default risk.

He points out that before the redlining legislation black and white default rates were broadly the same indicating that whatever criteria the banks used it fulfilled its main purpose of estimating default likelihood.

He then shows data that the anti discrimination legislation increased black default rates and questions whether you encouraging minorities to declare bankruptcy and enter financial ruin is really something to be desired.

Before you make blanket statements on the man you should be familiar with his stance on things. Your comment lacks the nuance that one is apt to find in any sowell book.

Sowell talked about the CRA and was proven wrong by multiple studies, like this one, which has a section dedicated to how the CRA wasn't a problem: https://www.responsiblelending.org/mortgage-lending/research...

Stop the Sowell worship. Please, internet, for the love of god. He will always talk about how everything that democrats do is bad and everything conservatives do is good. He isn't right on everything all the time.

>Sowell talked about the CRA and was proven wrong by multiple studies, like this one, which has a section dedicated to how the CRA wasn't a problem: https://www.responsiblelending.org/mortgage-lending/research....

So you agree the document you linked doesn't disprove what the other poster said? No one has brought up the 2018 housing crisis.

No he didn't, what are you talking about? Just because he mentioned foreclosures means he meant the CRA caused the 2008 housing crisis? No one was talking about it, you just brought it up out of no where.

His statement had NOTHING to do with the housing crisis, the only link between them seems to be "both involve foreclosures, so if I prove CRA did not cause the crisis I will prove his other statement is also incorrect... Because they both have the word 'foreclose' in them"

The OP brought up that Sowell said that anti discrimination legislation increased defaulting and bankruptcy. Thomas Sowell literally wrote an entire article blaming CRA about 10 years ago. I brought up how Sowell is wrong because studies show that he is wrong.

He was wrong and/or misleading about everything he said in this article. Maybe you should apply the same suspicion to someone like Sowell instead.

Stop the bad-faith discussion. I never 'worshipped' Sowell. The commenter above claimed that Sowell has not grappled with various studies that show various racial disparities. I've read his works, and Sowell indeed does directly confront these studies, so to say he is ignoring evidence is wrong.

Whether or not Sowell is right is not really up for discussion. What was being discussed is whether Sowell acknowledges studies on topics he is interested in. Indeed he does, and he finds issues in many studies as well as other studies that have remained mostly unacknowledged by academia.

> He isn't right on everything all the time.

This is a ridiculous standard to judge anyone by. No one is right all the time. Stop changing the goalposts.

If Sowell is responding to specific claims made by researchers of systemic racism, then it can't possibly be merely empty rhetoric, it's a subject of active academic inquiry.

He never claimed that systemic racism could not exist. In fact, in his books, he openly admits that he believes that it did indeed once exist. He just questions whether the studies being produced today are done so without pre-existing bias (are they looking for data to back up their belief, or vice versa) and whether the data produced evidentiates the conclusion. If indeed the studies you cite and that he refutes are looking for data to back up their pre-existing conclusion, then propaganda is the correct description.

No one has put forth the argument that Sowell believes systematic racism cannot ever exist. All that has been said is that he questions whether it currently exists today and the conclusions of the studies you cite.

The comment I was responding to literally said "It is immeasurable, undefinable, unchangeable. As a propagandist you must take care to use things that can not be countered. Systemic racism is one of those." A very clear implication that systemic racism doesn't exist.

Now, this may not be Sowell's views, but fortunately for Sowell, I never mentioned him in my initial reply.

> He just questions whether the studies being produced today are done so without pre-existing bias (are they looking for data to back up their belief, or vice versa) and whether the data produced evidentiates the conclusion.

All science is performed with biases. We couldn't possibly form a hypothesis without following our intuitions first. The question is whether our biases conform to the data. Of course, biases may also shape how we interpret data, but this is true for everyone. Sowell may be right, but let's not pretend that he, or anyone for that matter, is the only one approaching this research with a truly neutral, unbiased approach.

I think it's fair to subject research into systemic racism to scrutiny, but that's merely the process of academic review. It should never be touted as cutting through the propaganda, as if Sowell is some kind of crusader against the dogmatic PC police left.

> In fact, in his books, he openly admits that he believes that it did indeed once exist.

Now, call me crazy, but given that he believes it once existed, I find it hard to believe that he also believes that it's just over and done with now. John Lewis just died recently, and I consider it unlikely that we'd ferret out racism from our systems in just that span of time, especially when I hear stories of, for instance, a North Carolina legislature disenfranchising Black people with surgical precision as recent as 2014. If we still have that kind of explicit racism in our public institutions, it's unreasonable to think more subtle forms aren't also causing unequal outcomes.

Yes, he does believe racism exists within systems. But this is not what is meant by 'systemic racism'. Today, systemic racism is both a description of a problem, as well as an insinuation of its cause -- namely 'white privilege' and white hegemony -- and an insinuation of solutions -- namely progressive legislation. Sowell rejects these insinuated causes and insinuated solutions and instead believes discrimination and poor outcomes for blacks today is driven by progressive policies such as a lack of school choice, laws encouraging loans be made to blacks who cannot afford it, etc. He believes that blacks will be helped by a return to a less regulated market. While this viewpoint could be named under the umbrella of 'systemic racism', let's be honest with ourselves that that's not what the term has come to mean

Also, if you believe that institutions discriminate against Black people, is the direct implication not that Whites are privileged over them in these spaces?

And as for school choice, my understanding was that the research showed that school choice worsened racial education outcomes, like this paper claims [1]. I know I've seen other research to this effect, but this is just one of the first results of google scholar. If nothing else, I would assume that any school choice policy must be coupled with a progressive transportation program, lest that choice become determined by geographic disparities, which because of segregation policies both on the books and within people's historical preferences, just bakes in racial disparities.

Regardless, to act like school choice is some kind of underground counter-culture movement to a progressive-dominated education system, when Betsy DeVoss is Secretary of Education, seems misguided at best. I don't know why you feel the need to dance around terms like "systemic racism" as if it will inadvertently empower a progressive movement when that progressive movement isn't even in power.

[1] https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/pam.20226?ca...

"Using rich data linking federal cases from arrest through to sentencing, we find that initial case and defendant characteristics, including arrest offense and criminal history, can explain most of the large raw racial disparity in federal sentences, but significant gaps remain. Across the distribution, blacks receive sentences that are almost 10 percent longer than those of comparable whites arrested for the same crimes. Most of this disparity can be explained by prosecutors’ initial charging decisions, particularly the filing of charges carrying mandatory minimum sentences. Ceteris paribus, the odds of black arrestees facing such a charge are 1.75 times higher than those of white arrestees."

It should also be noted that the vast majority of people talking about the sentencing disparity ascribe 100% of the sentencing difference to racism, when this paper states that it's actually a 10% delta, and the other 90% is due to previous criminal record, etc. It's not like activists ever cared about nuance.

The issue I have with the term "systemic racism" is that it is typically used in a purposefully nebulous fashion to capture and group a collection of specific, actionable issues that can be measured.

Of course, you seem to be implying that people aren't actually trying to address these issues individually, and you couldn't be more wrong. Academics and policymakers alike are forming and implementing solutions all the time. You might just be looking too closely at Twitter.

It's frankly insulting that, despite the ongoing tragedy of racial inequality and the abundance of experts actively working to resolve it, that you and others are so caught up in such meaningless semantic games.

> It should also be noted that the vast majority of people talking about the sentencing disparity ascribe 100% of the sentencing difference to racism

I'm not sure how you can substantiate that claim.

> it's actually a 10% delta

You say that like a 10% delta because the color of your skin isn't tragic.

> It's not like activists ever cared about nuance.

Are they supposed to? We have a representative democracy for a reason: average people and activists push for change, and experts and representatives try to enact that push a reasonably as possible. I wouldn't expect the average person to approach policy failures with moderation. Most don't have years of higher education or a heterogeneous voter base to appease to moderate them. That goes for all sides. Don't act like the constituency who decry systemic racism approach it with the same nuance as Sowell.

And I never said the 10% delta wasn't awful. That is of course a horrific thing that must be addressed. It's also a specific issue that can be measured and solved.

Systemic racism is used just like God was when I, growing up in the south, had to defend my belief in evolution. The favorite weapon of the biblical creationists is termed "God of the gaps". They would look for some biological feature (their favorite was the human eye) that wasn't fully explained by evolutionary science, and then claim that gap in science had to be filled by God's existence.

Systemic racism is "racism of the gaps". Every discrepancy between two arbitrarily separated groups is termed evidence of some non-specific, internal bigotry that absolutely must exist. The fact that various cultural groups behave and raise children differently is ignored. Southern whites are much poorer than norther whites. Must be bigotry. It couldn't be cultural differences.....

Women are radically underrepresented as victims of police violence. There must be systemic bigotry towards men by police. Asians are underrepresented in police killings. Police must systemically favor them.

We know that this isn't true, and that women are underrepresented in police killings because they are dramatically less likely to be in confrontations with police. But this logic is willfully ignored in place of the "systemic racism" canard when looking at black male overrepresentation in police killings. It's exactly what you would expect when people who seek power instead of truth are dominating the conversation.

And since you are defending activists willfully misrepresenting data to feed emotional narratives, let's talk about the fact that BLM's hyperbolic language around police killings of black men has caused a large percentage of the population to think that police are a statistically significant threat to the lives of black men in America. The other impression left on the minds of the public is that black men are exclusively the victims of police violence, when the data says otherwise.

https://mappingpoliceviolence.org/nationaltrends

Here, you see that 76% of the people killed by police are non-black in the US. And yes, black men are overrepresented, and so are latinos. Asians are underrepresented. Activists have SUCCEEDED in manipulating the public on this, and have created social pressure that academics are yielding to.

Ask yourself why you have to use Google to find the name of a Latino who was unjustly killed by police in the last 5 years, but you (if you are like me) can list the names of multiple black men unjustly killed by police in the same time frame? Do you think that discrepancy in knowledge is natural, fair, or just?

The ethno-centric activists have taken the very real issue of police violence, and turned it into a race specific one, needlessly. Racial issues are easy to weaponize, and that's probably the motivation, but it comes at the cost of actual truth. Police kill citizens of all colors with impunity. George Floyd's murderers were arrested a day later. The killer of Daniel Shaver (the second most egregious police killing video I've seen after George Floyd) was given early retirement with a full pension.

Has systemic racism not been researched?

I feel like you're just grasping at semantic straws here. Systemic racism is a theory, like any other scientific theory. Believe it or not, it's a framework that informs research.

> Systemic racism is used just like God was when I, growing up in the south

God is a theory too, just an increasingly tenuous one. Systemic racism seems to bear out in studies.

I don't know why scientifically minded people seem to act like science is just a done deal, and that any theory they instinctively don't like is somehow newfangled. This is just not how science has ever been conducted. Every theory starts out new and strange, and we just have to see how it comports to the data.

> Every discrepancy between two arbitrarily separated groups is termed evidence of some non-specific, internal bigotry that absolutely must exist.

Except the term "systemic racism" literally means that this bigotry is externalized—it exists within the systems of rules we created.

It also seems weird to use "absolutely must exist" sarcastically when you agreed to that 10% statistic earlier. That's just one stat. No, not everything is systemic racism, but as we established earlier, that's not what anyone's saying. Research suggests that the problem is pervasive enough to validate the phenomenon of "systemic racism" is quite real.

> The fact that various cultural groups behave and raise children differently is ignored.

It isn't? Culture, much like individual action, is determined heavily by institutions. People can complain about rap music glorifying a distrust of the law, but when there are actual stats showing a 10% disparity in sentencing, I can't really be too harsh on the rapper here.

Frankly, I never understand this vector of attack. Like, let's assume that all this was actually 100% culture. How do we fix anything? How do you change culture? You can't just tell Black people "be better, and stop that rap music." It seems to me that the answer is still institutional change.

> There must be systemic bigotry towards men by police.

This is actually true. The justice system is disproportionately harsher on men, but that's because we perceive men as being stronger and more in control of their actions. Indeed, we do need to have a cultural shift towards the perception of men, but that shift starts by making our institutions more willing to consider men as vulnerable so we can address it.

> women are underrepresented in police killings because they are dramatically less likely to be in confrontations with police.

But why is that the case. It's not random.

> And since you are defending activists willfully misrepresenting data to feed emotional narratives

You can be dismissive of activists, just make sure it's universal. No side has ownership of "calm rational discourse." I just see a lot of people focus on the temperament of activists rather than the actual policy being considered. It's just a pointless ad hominem. Everyone can point to some group of the unwashed masses and say "look at all those dumb people supporting you, don't you look silly now!"

> The other impression left on the minds of the public is that black men are exclusively the victims of police violence, when the data says otherwise.

Sure, I also think "defund the police" is a misguided slogan. Fortunately, laws aren't written by slogans, they're written by experts.

> Ask yourself why you have to use Google to find the name of a Latino who was unjustly killed by police in the last 5 years, but you (if you are like me) can list the names of multiple black men unjustly killed by police in the same time frame? Do you think that discrepancy in knowledge is natural, fair, or just?

No, but the reforms that BLM protesters are asking for would also help Latino people. I agree that it would be great that the discourse could be on all police violence, because it certainly is pervasive, but I'm not really going to blame Black people, who have an incredibly unique history in this country to focus on their own community's strife.

I also wouldn't expect an organization called Black Lives Matter to be advocating for Latinos (though, I think the work that they do conveniently does). No one is suppressing a Latino Lives Matter movement, it's just that the Latino experience in this country doesn't seem to coalesce in that way. I'm sure there's a very interesting investigation one could perform to figure out why.

> The ethno-centric activists have taken the very real issue of police violence, and turned it into a race specific one, needlessly.

I don't see why that's a problem when the goal is the same. Proposed police reforms aren't race-specific.

It's a problem because making it race specific undermines the goals of police reform. BLM the slogan isn't the same as the organization. The organization conflates the goals of police reforms with a lot of the typical ultra-left wing ivory tower identity ideas like claims that the nuclear family is internalized white supremacy. These ideas are unacceptable to the vast majority of Americans on all parts of the political spectrum, and weaken the goal of police reform.

I grew up in a mostly black county, and the first time I walked into a classroom that wasn't mostly black was freshman year in college. I've noticed a pattern among whites who grew up in segregated suburbs of holding black people to a lower moral and intellectual standard than they hold themselves to. Words like "its understandable that they would" are used to justify BLM willfully, actively, and purposefully misinforming the public on police violence. A consistent minority of people of all racial categories are inherently wired for bigotry. White people need to get more comfortable calling out these hard-wired bigots when they DON'T share their own skin color. Stop celebrating this behavior. It's bad, and needlessly divisive. I got my ass kicked several times by the minority of black kids in my school who were bigots. Most of the non-bigoted black kids stood by and watched. A minority would intervene on my behalf. This is pretty identical to historical acts of white racism. The conformists are what worry me the most. You know, people who suddenly, because the New York Times said so, start capitalizing Black when they've never done so in their entire lives. NYT did so because they think the tiny ivory tower academic community that told them to capitalize black was representative of the black community. As if white academics are remotely similar to the typical white American.

I'm not sure where you learned feminist theory, but it's fairly resolute about the fact that Patriarchy is deleterious to both men and women.

If men get sentenced more harshly because they are "stronger" and "more rational", or even just perceived that way, then there's no problem with them dominating roles that benefit from a lot of strength or rationality, roles like CEO of a company. But feminists have a big problem with that notion. They're all about how women are just as good as men at everything, equal in all respects and thus deserving of equal outcomes, right until there's an outcome that's better for women than men. Then suddenly there's an intellectual sounding but illogical explanation.

Elected officials can rely on dogma too, styling themselves like sports teams, knowing that because actually accomplishing something is off the table for both parties, they have to appeal to voters almost entirely by signaling their virtues.

Yes, it would mean rapid fluctuations in policy, but the idea is that we need to inject some volatility so we can see what works and what doesn't. Obviously, this can lead to problems, like a majority party implementing policies which restrict the electorate or affect populations that can't form a strong voting coalition, but I'm not sure this is worse than what we have already.

Further, I'm not really sure how we're supposed to reevaluate "we." That's a neat soundbite, but what does that mean? What are you suggesting we actually do? Alter the electorate? Split the union?

There's no need to split the Union if we just follow the US Constitutions as the Framers intended: a Union of States with powers broadly vested in the States (see: the 9th and 10th Amendments).

The more we take out of the purview of the Federal government and the more we allow States the leeway to enact whatever systems they wish (democratically), the more the States coexist harmoniously. The United States begins to look like the European Union.

If anything, a Liberal Arts educations ought to provide students a higher degree of skepticism towards all expressions of ideology, and seek to find the truth through critical research. Obviously, that's the ideal, note necessarily the reality in all cases, but it seems your notion of Liberal Arts is more akin to "hippy-dippy" nonsense, not critical study.

I can't stand MPFR's page. There's very little visual hierarchy, so if I go to the page, I have to look through all the text to find anything specific. For a library like this, a big, colored download button would just make everyone's life easier. And it's a small thing, but why put the introduction third, so I have to scroll to see it? Just put a short tag line up top so I know what I'm looking at.

I get the desire to have content, and I agree that modern trends often go too far the other direction, but there is such a thing as fetishizing blandness. It's just a chore to read.

And what exactly is wrong with the Go rebranding? They haven't even changed the website, so I don't even know what your criticism is other than "I don't like modern, sleek logos and typefaces." Because otherwise, Rust and the Go update have basically the same info design (modern type, single tag line, high contrast, etc.).

Also, since when have colleges been teaching Vaporwave? Isn't Vaporwave largely a meme? I don't really see it manifesting in any design trends beyond that domain.

I can't stand chatbot popups on websites, because I know what I'm doing and don't like being bothered, but I can imagine that an older or less tech-savvy demographic might find the instant tech support quite novel.

Regardless, the fact that we've made any strides at all within these fields is proof of determinism. If not 100% determinism, then enough to dispel notions of a "just world."