At a glance, I'm not seeing a big difference in share of wealth between now and 1989. I'm not sure, then, what Robert Reich's point is, to say that the richest 10% "now" hold 60% of the nation's wealth, nor how he can come to the conclusion that it is "eating" the economy alive. Nor what the point is of providing a chonological graph, a graph which doesn't provide any actual percentages, nor a source. He's an accompolished economist, he can do better than that if wants to point out the egregious unfairness of society. Or is this the quality of argument on x.
> In 1920, there were 25 million horses in the United States, 25 million horses totally ambivalent to two hundred years of progress in mechanical engines.
I really doubt horses would be ambivalent about this, let alone about anything. Or maybe I'm wrong, they were in two minds: oh dear I'm at risk of being put to sleep, or maybe it could lead to a nice long retirement out on a grassy meadow. But they're in all likelihood blissfully unaware.
The article gives the impression "Italy" was always a nation in the making for all of history, just waiting to "unify". It talks of a "national rebirth".
But it's an invention. It never previously existed. Yes the penisula was referred to as Italy for a long time and the language is shared across the area and there are cultural similarities. But none of that automatically makes a nation - you don't have to think hard of counter examples. History could have panned out differently. It still could.
I think the bourgeoisies have been enormously successful in giving the impression that these nation states, whether it be Italy or Germany, or India, etc, that they're inevitable, they're permanent and anything else is a perversion. And Garibaldi was one such whose brilliance was to forge a nation so quickly from so many disparate states.
Was the language really shared, or is that also a more recent development? I'm not sure what they spoke in Piedmont in 1800 would have been particularly intelligible to a Roman or a Neapolitan, and the Piedmontese dialect still exists today as something pretty distinct from Italian.
1. The concept of nation state is historically very young, few centuries at best in it's modern concept and that's when most modern nation states formed, the very last centuries. That's true anywhere from Asia to the balcans to the Americas and Africa.
2. Italy has been seen by Italian populations as one entity from millennia, essentially since the Roman empire when all the Italian tribes wanted to be elevated to the same status of citizenship as romans. And there's an overabundance of historical proofs of it, you're gonna find for centuries and centuries of Italian literature and diplomacy. Every single major writer in Italian history since middle ages has written openly about Italia, Dante Alighieri dedicated an entire chant in the 13th century to the woes of the Italian people "Ahi serva Italia".
3. You are absolutely right in stating that the major promoters of Italian unifications have been the elites, but that's common to most such historical events.
I think Datastar has the better approach here with making OOB the default. I suspect HTMX's non-OOB default makes more sense for very simple requirements where you simply replace the part of the DOM from which the action was triggered. But personally, situations where OOB is necessary is more typical.
Interestingly, elements sent via the HTMX websocket extension [1] do use OOB by default.
html/template blocks are not as ergonomic. They force you to work on the template level and drill down into the blocks. Templ, Gomponents etc. let you build up the components from smaller pieces, like Lego.
I don't think the article does a good job of summarising the differences, so I'll have a go:
* Datastar sends all responses using SSE (Server Side Events). Usually SSE is employed to allow the server to push events to the client, and Datastar does this, but it also uses SSE encoding of events in response to client initiated actions like clicking a button (clicking the button sends a GET request and the server responds with zero or more SSE events over a time period of the server's choice).
* Whereas HTMX supports SSE as one of several extensions, and only for server-initiated events. It also supports Websockets for two-way interaction.
* Datastar has a concept of signals, which manages front-end state. HTMX doesn't do this and you'll need AlpineJS or something similar as well.
* HTMX supports something called OOB (out-of-band), where you can pick out fragments of the HTML response to be patched into various parts of the DOM, using the ID attribute. In Datastar this is the default behaviour.
* Datastar has a paid-for Pro edition, which is necesssary if you want certain behaviours. HTMX is completely free.
I think the other differences are pretty minor:
* Datastar has smaller library footprint but both are tiny to begin with (11kb vs 14kb), which is splitting hairs.
* Datastar needs fewer attributes to achieve the same behaviours. I'm not sure about this, you might need to customise the behaviour which requires more and more attributes, but again, it's not a big deal.
As someone on the sideline who's been considering HTMX, its alternatives and complements, this was a helpful comment! Even without having used any of it, I get the feeling they're going in the right direction, including HTMX author's humorous evangelism. If I remember correctly he also wrote Grug, which was satire and social criticism of high caliber.
D* doesnt only use SSE. It can do normal http request-response as well. Though, SSE can also do 0, 1 or infinite responses too.
Calling datastar's pro features "necessary" is a bit disingenuous - they literally tell people not to buy it because those features, themselves, are not actually necessary. Theyre just bells and whistles, and some are actually a bad idea (in their own words).
Datastar is 11kb and that includes all of the htmx plugins you mentioned (sse, idiomorph) and much more (all of alpine js, essentially).
It's also pretty shady that no mention is made of Datastar Pro on the home page [1]. You might well be well on the way to integrating Datastar into your website before you stumble across the Pro edition, which is only mentioned on the side bar of the reference page [2].
Isn't that only a problem if it advertised pro features there without mentioning the fact that they're paid? If it didn't then you could just be happy with the free features, no?
I'd expect it to make it explicit this is a freemium product, with free features and paid features. Nothing is given on the home page to indicate as such.
If they aren’t leading to expect that they have the paid features for free, how is offering them for money any different from just not offering those features at all?
It’s not like your exiting use cases stop working past 10 users or something.
if a feature I want is in the paid product then I assume there's less chance of it being added to the free version. every feature has to go through a process to decide if it's paid or free.
If there's money to be made the possibility that the feature will ever exist at all goes way up. I'd rather have the ability to pay for a feature if I decide I need it than to hope some maintainer gets around to building it for free.
They've said that the feature they put in the premium product are the features they don't want to build or maintain without being paid to do so.
> ...To accomplish this, most HTMX developers achieve updates either by “pulling” information from the server by polling every few seconds or by writing custom WebSocket code, which increases complexity.
This isn't true. HTMX has native support for "pushing" data to the browser with Websockets or SSE, without "custom" code.
> These payment processors seem to be basically levying a 1-3% tax on a nations entire GDP
You're exaggerating for effect. GDP is the total value of all goods and services sold or bought; only a fraction of which is paid for with a credit card. I doubt an F35 is purchased with a Visa.
