{"id":137240,"date":"2021-02-21T07:04:39","date_gmt":"2021-02-21T15:04:39","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/lukeford.net\/blog\/?p=137240"},"modified":"2021-02-21T08:13:19","modified_gmt":"2021-02-21T16:13:19","slug":"slate-star-codex","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lukeford.net\/blog\/?p=137240","title":{"rendered":"The Slate Star Codex Blog &#038; Its New York Time Profile"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><A HREF=\"https:\/\/slatestarcodex.com\/2020\/06\/22\/nyt-is-threatening-my-safety-by-revealing-my-real-name-so-i-am-deleting-the-blog\/\">Here&#8217;s a timeline<\/a>:<\/p>\n<p>* <A HREF=\"https:\/\/slatestarcodex.com\/2020\/06\/22\/nyt-is-threatening-my-safety-by-revealing-my-real-name-so-i-am-deleting-the-blog\/\">A New York Times journalist wants to write an article about you and your online community.<\/a><br \/>\n* You don&#8217;t want to face that you have threatened your own well being and you fear that exposure of your choices will reveal some things many people won&#8217;t like.<br \/>\n* So you freak out and delete your whole blog and blame the New York Times for that.<br \/>\n* Your community reacts by viciously going after the New York Times.<br \/>\n* <A HREF=\"https:\/\/www.unz.com\/isteve\/scott-alexander-has-now-been-doxed-by-the-ny-times\/\">The New York Times is confirmed in its suspicion that there are dark sides to you and your community and writes that story.<\/a><\/p>\n<p>Scott Alexander Suskin created a self-fulfilling prophecy. <\/p>\n<p>As <A HREF=\"https:\/\/mynewbandis.substack.com\/p\/slate-star-clusterfuck\">Elizabeth Spiers wrote<\/a>:<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>I suggest an easier route than summoning an army of bots, oppo researchers, Dark Enlightenment (ironic labeling for whatever that constitutes) warriors, etc., to go after journalists whose work you don\u2019t like: pay careful attention to what you\u2019re afraid they\u2019re going to write, and why you wouldn\u2019t want it to be public. Then apply some rational thinking. <\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p><iframe width=\"560\" height=\"315\" src=\"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/embed\/XcGyJQnpPas\" frameborder=\"0\" allow=\"accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture\" allowfullscreen><\/iframe><\/p>\n<p><A HREF=\"https:\/\/www.newyorker.com\/culture\/annals-of-inquiry\/slate-star-codex-and-silicon-valleys-war-against-the-media\">The New Yorker wrote July 9, 2020<\/a>: <\/p>\n<blockquote><p>In a parenthetical aside, he asked that his supporters remain courteous: \u201cRemember that you are representing me and the SSC community, and I will be very sad if you are a jerk to anybody. Please just explain the situation and ask them to stop doxxing random bloggers for clicks. If you are some sort of important tech person who the New York Times technology section might want to maintain good relations with, mention that.\u201d This plea conformed with the online persona he has publicly cultivated over the years\u2014that of a gentle headmaster preparing to chaperone a rambunctious group of boys on a museum outing\u2014but, in this case, it seemed to lend plausible deniability to what he surely knew would be taken as incitement.<\/p>\n<p>&#8230;Alexander\u2019s appeal elicited an instant reaction from members of the local intelligentsia in Silicon Valley and its satellite principalities. Within a few days, a petition collected more than six thousand signatories, including the cognitive psychologist Steven Pinker, the economist Tyler Cowen, the social psychologist Jonathan Haidt, the cryptocurrency oracle Vitalik Buterin, the quantum physicist David Deutsch, the philosopher Peter Singer, and the OpenAI C.E.O. Sam Altman. Much of the support Alexander received was motivated simply by a love for his writing. The blogger Scott Aaronson, a professor of computer science at the University of Texas at Austin, wrote, \u201cIn my view, for SSC to be permanently deleted would be an intellectual loss on the scale of, let\u2019s say, John Stuart Mill or Mark Twain burning their collected works.\u201d Other responses seemed unwarranted by the matter at hand. Alexander had not named the reporter in question, but the former venture capitalist and cryptocurrency enthusiast Balaji Srinivasan, who has a quarrelsome Twitter personality, tweeted\u2014some three hours after the post appeared, at 2:33 a.m. in San Francisco\u2014that this example of \u201cjournalism as the non-consensual invasion of privacy for profit\u201d was courtesy of Cade Metz, a technology writer ordinarily given over to enthusiastic stories on the subject of artificial intelligence. Alexander\u2019s plea for civility went unheeded, and Metz and his editor were flooded with angry messages. In another tweet, Srinivasan turned to address Silicon Valley investors, entrepreneurs, and C.E.O.s: \u201cThe New York Times tried to doxx Scott Alexander for clicks. Just unsubscribing won\u2019t change much. They can afford it. What will is freezing them out. By RTing #ghostnyt you commit to not talking to NYT reporters or giving them quotes. Go direct if you have something to say.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>Other prominent figures in Silicon Valley, including Paul Graham, the co-founder of the foremost startup incubator, Y Combinator, followed suit. Graham did not expect, as many seemed to, that the article would prove to be a \u201chit piece,\u201d he wrote. \u201cIt\u2019s revealing that so many worry it will be, though. Few would have 10 years ago. But it\u2019s a more dangerous time for ideas now than 10 years ago, and the NYT is also less to be trusted.\u201d This atmosphere of danger and mistrust gave rise to a spate of conspiracy theories: Alexander was being \u201cdoxxed\u201d or \u201ccancelled\u201d because of his support for a Michigan State professor accused of racism, or because he\u2019d recently written a post about his dislike for paywalls, or because the Times was simply afraid of the independent power of the proudly heterodox Slate Star Codex cohort.<\/p>\n<p>The proliferation of such elaborate conjectures was hardly commensurate with the vision of Slate Star Codex as a touchstone of patience and disinterest. Alexander\u2019s initial account of his exchange with Metz seemed to have seeded the escalation. For one thing, the S.S.C. code prioritizes semantic precision, but Metz\u2014if Alexander\u2019s account is to be taken at its word\u2014had proposed not to \u201cdoxx\u201d Alexander but to de-anonymize him. Additionally, it seems difficult to fathom that a professional journalist of Metz\u2019s experience and standing would assure a subject, especially at the beginning of a process, that he planned to write a \u201cmostly positive\u201d story; although there often seems to be some confusion about this matter in Silicon Valley, journalism and public relations are distinct enterprises. Finally, the business model of the Times has little to do with chasing \u201cclicks,\u201d per se, and, even if it did, no self-respecting journalist would conclude that the pursuit of clicks was best served by the de-anonymization of a \u201crandom blogger.\u201d The Times, although its policy permits exceptions for a variety of reasons, errs on the side of the transparency and accountability that accompany the use of real names. S.S.C. supporters on Twitter were quick to identify some of the Times\u2019 recent concessions to pseudonymous quotation\u2014Virgil Texas, a co-host of the podcast \u201cChapo Trap House,\u201d was mentioned, as were Banksy and a member of isis\u2014as if these supposed inconsistencies were dispositive proof of the paper\u2019s secret agenda, rather than an ad-hoc and perhaps clumsy application of a flexible policy. Had the issue been with Facebook and its contentious moderation policies, which are applied in a similarly ad-hoc and sometimes clumsy way, the reaction in Silicon Valley would likely have been more magnanimous.<\/p>\n<p>Until recently, I was a writer for the Times Magazine, and the idea that anyone on the organization\u2019s masthead would direct a reporter to take down a niche blogger because he didn\u2019t like paywalls, or he promoted a petition about a professor, or, really, for any other reason, is ludicrous; stories emerge from casual interactions between curious reporters and their overtaxed editors.<\/p>\n<p>&#8230;But the rationalists, despite their fixation with cognitive bias, read into the contingencies a darkly meaningful pattern. Alexander, whose role has been to help explain Silicon Valley to itself, was taken up as a mascot and a martyr in a struggle against the Times, which, in the tweets of Srinivasan, Graham, and others, was enlisted as a proxy for all of the gatekeepers\u2014the arbiters of what it is and is not O.K. to say, and who is allowed, by virtue of their identity, to say it. <\/p>\n<p>&#8230;These conversations, about race and genetic or biological differences between the sexes, have rightfully drawn criticism from outsiders.  But the rationalists, despite their fixation with cognitive bias, read into the contingencies a darkly meaningful pattern. Alexander, whose role has been to help explain Silicon Valley to itself, was taken up as a mascot and a martyr in a struggle against the Times, which, in the tweets of Srinivasan, Graham, and others, was enlisted as a proxy for all of the gatekeepers\u2014the arbiters of what it is and is not O.K. to say, and who is allowed, by virtue of their identity, to say it. <\/p>\n<p>&#8230;Alexander has long fretted over the likelihood that the presence of these fringe figures could tarnish the reputation of the blog and its community. In late 2013, he published \u201cThe Anti-Reactionary FAQ,\u201d a thirty-thousand-word post now regarded as one of his first major contributions to the rationalist canon. The post describes the world view of a group, centered around a figure called Curtis Yarvin, also known as Mencius Moldbug, whose \u201cneoreactionary\u201d views\u2014including an open desire for the restoration of feudalism and racial hierarchy\u2014contributed to the intellectual normalization of what became known as the alt-right. Alexander could have banned neoreactionaries from his comments section, but, on the basis of the view that vile ideas should be countenanced and refuted rather than left to accrue the status of forbidden knowledge, he took their arguments seriously and at almost comical length\u2014even at the risk that he might lend them legitimacy. Ultimately, he circumscribed or curtailed certain \u201cculture war\u201d threads. Still, the rationalists\u2019 general willingness to pursue orderly exchanges on objectionable topics, often with monstrous people, remains not only a point of pride but a constitutive part of the subculture\u2019s self-understanding.<\/p>\n<p>They have given safe harbor to some genuinely egregious ideas, and controversial opinions have not been limited to the comments. <\/p>\n<p>&#8230;It remains possible that Alexander vaporized his blog not because he thought it would force Metz\u2019s hand but because he feared that a Times reporter wouldn\u2019t have to poke around for very long to turn up a creditable reason for negative coverage.<\/p>\n<p>&#8230;Are they wrong to worry that a reporter would want to make them pay for it? In the case of Slate Star Codex versus the Times, the stridency and hyperbole of the reactions of Alexander\u2019s cohort to his cause bear the classic markers of grandiosity: the conviction that they are at once potent and beleaguered.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p><A HREF=\"https:\/\/www.thenation.com\/article\/archive\/quillette-fascist-creep\/\">The Nation posted Dec. 5, 2019<\/a>: <\/p>\n<blockquote><p>The online magazine of the \u201cintellectual dark web\u201d is repackaging discredited race science<\/p>\n<p>Quillette is Reid Ross\u2019s fascist creep par excellence; it\u2019s fascism creeping so close to liberalism that the radical ethicist Peter Singer was willing to write a short statement for the magazine condemning a protest against a racist professor, and erstwhile liberal Steven Pinker praised it as \u201ca gust of fresh air.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>The constitutive ideology of Quillette comes out most clearly in the arena of race. At least five Quillette contributors\u2014Kevin M. Beaver, Brian Boutwell, Adam Perkins, Jason Richwine, and John Paul Wright\u2014have gone on white nationalist Stefan Molyneux\u2019s show to discuss their \u201cresearch\u201d on topics like race, intelligence, and \u201ccriminality.\u201d Richwine, who in the past wrote for white nationalist Richard Spencer\u2019s website alternativeright.com, agreed with Molyneux\u2019s assertion that there is a \u201chierarchy\u201d of IQ extending from \u201cAshkenazi Jews and East Asians\u201d on down in decreasing order to \u201cthe whites, and then the Hispanics, and then the blacks.\u201d Boutwell declared, \u201cIt\u2019s no secret\u2026that there are differences that emerge across racial and ethnic groups for involvement in crime.\u201d Wright has written that African Americans have a deficit in \u201cexecutive function,\u201d \u201cself-control and IQ\u201d that leads them to \u201ccommit more violent crime than any other group.\u201d Perkins, who claims welfare recipients have a genetically based capacity to be \u201caggressive, antisocial,\u201d and \u201cunemployable,\u201d has also appeared on the white nationalist show Reality Calls, which had a celebratory feature called \u201cThis Week on the Alt-Right.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>Quillette takes this racist HBD theory and launders it in lifeless prose. For example, one article declared its support for Charles Murray\u2019s 1994 book The Bell Curve, and included the blandly articulated claim, \u201cThere are race differences in intelligence, with East Asians scoring roughly 103 on IQ tests, whites scoring 100, and Blacks scoring 85.\u201d The Quillette authors themselves concluded, \u201cThere are, as yet, no good alternative explanations\u201d for \u201cracial differences in IQ scores\u201d other than \u201cgenetics.\u201d <\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p><A HREF=\"https:\/\/noahpinion.substack.com\/p\/insurrection-thoughts-113\">Noah Smith writes<\/a>: <\/p>\n<blockquote><p>I think Americans dramatically underrate how much better life will be without Nazis around.<\/p>\n<p>And by \u201cNazis\u201d, I do not mean Republicans, or conservatives, or Trump supporters, or people with racist attitudes in general. I specifically mean hardcore passionate white supremacists for whom white supremacist activism is a lifestyle. This is a relatively small fringe; most racists don\u2019t make a lifestyle out of it.<\/p>\n<p>But even though Nazis are a small fringe in America, they are a fractal fringe \u2014 they branch out and ramify and flow into any space that allows them. In the 1980s, a Nazi fringe tried to be part of the punk subculture. Punks responded by punching Nazis in the face and kicking them out of the subculture. In recent years, Nazis have tried to be part of the Black Metal subculture. Black Metal fans are responding by systematically excluding Nazis. Gamer culture has also tried to kick out infiltrating Nazis, with less success. And Nazis successfully infiltrated and destroyed 4chan.<\/p>\n<p>The lesson is that Nazis will relentlessly infiltrate anywhere where the powers that be fail to expel them with extreme prejudice. They will infiltrate your web forum. They will infiltrate your blog comments. They will go anywhere where they are not forcibly expelled. And once they are allowed in a space, they will make it awful for everyone else in that space, like a single rat turd floating in your bowl of cereal.<\/p>\n<p>The lesson the punks and metalheads learn is: Ban the Nazis, and things just get better. Yes, it can feel intolerant. But that\u2019s the Paradox of Tolerance:<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/lukeford.net\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/02\/https___bucketeer-e05bbc84-baa3-437e-9518-adb32be77984.s3.amazonaws.com_public_images_a3a64e21-07ab-48d6-ade6-55902f02b3df_614x768.jpeg\"><img decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/lukeford.net\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/02\/https___bucketeer-e05bbc84-baa3-437e-9518-adb32be77984.s3.amazonaws.com_public_images_a3a64e21-07ab-48d6-ade6-55902f02b3df_614x768-240x300.jpeg\" alt=\"\" width=\"240\" height=\"300\" class=\"alignnone size-medium wp-image-137253\" srcset=\"https:\/\/lukeford.net\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/02\/https___bucketeer-e05bbc84-baa3-437e-9518-adb32be77984.s3.amazonaws.com_public_images_a3a64e21-07ab-48d6-ade6-55902f02b3df_614x768-240x300.jpeg 240w, https:\/\/lukeford.net\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/02\/https___bucketeer-e05bbc84-baa3-437e-9518-adb32be77984.s3.amazonaws.com_public_images_a3a64e21-07ab-48d6-ade6-55902f02b3df_614x768.jpeg 614w\" sizes=\"(max-width: 240px) 100vw, 240px\" \/><\/a><\/p>\n<p>I suspect most people vastly underestimate how much better America as a whole will get when our current crop of Nazis finally gives up and goes away.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>Given the dominant anti-social ethos of white nationalism in America, Noah Smith&#8217;s suggestion is not absurd. I don&#8217;t agree with it either because I like free speech, but I recognize it is economical for most people to automatically dismiss anyone associated with white nationalism due to the poor quality of the people in America who espouse white nationalism (e.g., the large numbers of criminals, deviants, fantasists and under-achievers in the movement). Just as many people are extreme left for psychological and social reasons, surely many people are extreme right for psychological and social reasons? White nationalism, antifa and BLM probably give many people an opportunity to burn and destroy and the ideological reasons for this behavior are not important to most participants. They just want release from moral norms.<\/p>\n<p>If you spend hours posting\/reading 4chan\/pol, you&#8217;re probably anti-social. <\/p>\n<p>Similarly, normies probably have rational reasons for wanting to avoid association with anybody in the porn industry, even though that might limit connection with some interesting people. For normies, that which is so different as to be socially unacceptable is disturbing. <\/p>\n<p><A HREF=\"https:\/\/modelcitizen.substack.com\/p\/grey-lady-steel-man\">Will Wilkinson writes<\/a>: <\/p>\n<blockquote><p>\nJournalism isn\u2019t science. It\u2019s often more like low-grade war with hostile subjects. People who are newsworthy often wish that they weren\u2019t and are often straight-up antagonistic. If you\u2019re a reporter, they will respond as if you personally have it out for them (very unlikely) and are an enemy of their interests (often true, because people often don\u2019t want others to know the truth about them). They will lie to you. They will recruit people you\u2019re less likely to suspect of lying to you to lie to you. They may try to intimidate you and your family \u2014 or wink and look the other way when their allies do. They may refuse to give their real name, even if you already found it. They may even hurt themselves to hurt your story if they really, really, really don\u2019t want it written.<\/p>\n<p>Reporting is a hard job devoted in large measure to ferreting out truths that the subjects of the story you are writing are actively trying to conceal. I think it\u2019s important to emphasize that there is simply no sense \u2014 none! \u2014 in which people who like to talk about epistemology on the Internet are more committed to objectivity and truth than experienced reporters who, in the service of truth, navigate mazes of lies, gaslighting, spin, bullshit and threats for a living.<\/p>\n<p>That Scott Siskind\u2019s name is Scott Siskind is a fact relevant to a story about him, period. That\u2019s why it seems insanely paranoid to journalists like Lewis-Kraus to infer that Cade Metz, or the New York Times itself, in all its abstract corporate majesty, must harbor some vendetta because they think it makes sense to use your name in a story about you.<\/p>\n<p>&#8230;He\u2019s come to see that nobody at the Times was animated by ill will or had undertaken some nefarious ideological mission. It was just a guy doing his job all along. So, when Scott utterly lost his shit, it wasn\u2019t because Metz or the Times had done anything that reasonable person would anticipate leading to such an operatic response. Siskind seems to see that now. He gets that he\u2019s responsible for his reaction to his perception of the consequences that might have been brought about by his loss of anonymity. Neither Metz nor the Times sought to bring them about. The critical, volatile variable in the whole episode is the surprising ferocity of his attachment to anonymity, and he knows it&#8230;<\/p>\n<p>Siskind sees that\u2019s it\u2019s definitely reasonable to see him as an entitled jerk, but he\u2019s not actually admitting that he is. On the contrary, he ends up arguing (in typically illuminating and entertaining terms!) that, sure, he was irrational \u2026 but! There\u2019s a higher rationality to acting so crazy that folks you feel so antagonized by decide to back away and just leave the rabid dog alone. As he goes on, Siskind continues to tendentiously characterize reporting true, publicly available facts about people, such as their names, with \u201cdoxxing,\u201d the exposure of identifying information with malicious intent to cause harm.<\/p>\n<p>I think he does this, despite having conceded that there was no malicious intent in his case, because he thinks it\u2019s nevertheless seriously wrong to communicate certain facts about a person if they\u2019d rather they stay under their hat. More than that, Siskind suggests that people should not be allowed to freely communicate those facts without express permission \u2014 even if others have good reason to want to know. He seems to me to be saying that our interest in the privacy and impunity of anonymity generally outweigh our interest in freely speaking and receiving information about identity without the subject\u2019s consent.<\/p>\n<p>&#8230;A bunch of people in the community, Scott included, really are interested in neoreactionary thinking. In a recently leaked email exchange, <A HREF=\"https:\/\/web.archive.org\/web\/20210217195335\/https:\/\/twitter.com\/tophertbrennan\/status\/1362108632070905857\">Siskind admits to finding a lot worthwhile in it and confesses that he\u2019s hard on neo-reactionaries in public in part to throw people off the scent<\/a>. Curtis Yarvin\/Mencius Moldbug really is a familiar and known quantity who does hang around the community, even if he\u2019s not a central figure. Peter Thiel gives him money&#8230;<\/p>\n<p>I want to urge Siskind\u2019s irked supporters to consider that when Metz brings up Charles Murray, Voldemort feminists, unusually collegial engagement with neo-reactionary thought, and speculation about tech being male-heavy because women for some reason just get bored by numbers and gadgets, it\u2019s not because he\u2019s writing a hit job \u2014 it\u2019s because these are the kinds of things Siskind was terrified his employer and patients would connect to him. Huh? Why would you aim directly at the realization of Siskind\u2019s fears if not out of spite and malice? Well, the most interesting things about Slate Star Codex, from an outside perspective, are (1) that it\u2019s influential in Silicon Valley, and its enthusiastic fans include incredibly rich and powerful people whose technologies and businesses affect all our lives; (2) one day Siskind burnt it all down and summoned a vengeful horde to attack an innocent reporter and assail America\u2019s best newspaper.<\/p>\n<p>Now, the rules of America\u2019s best newspaper don\u2019t allow for speculation about motives and Siskind wasn\u2019t talking. But the rules definitely allow for laying out facts and letting readers draw their own conclusions. Well, all the allegedly \u201cnegative\u201d stuff on SSC is illustrative of why Siskind might panic and spike his blog. That powerful and influential men like Thiel and Balaji, who infamously harbor vitriolic hatred for snooping journalists, number among Siskind\u2019s fans is very interesting given how Siskind weaponized his rationalist readership to protect the anonymity that protects his reputation \u2014 especially since Siskind himself tells us that Balaji was advising him on how to fuck over journalists. Creating a mob of rationalists may seem a bit puzzling. Why would such smart people be so willing to enlist in a mercenary army fighting for the greater glory of Scott Siskind\u2019s psychiatric practice? Well, if you see it in the light of the Siskind\u2019s relentless promotion of the idea that the marketplace of ideas will end up abandoned and shuttered unless we come to treat anonymity as a basic right, it starts to make sense.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Here&#8217;s a timeline: * A New York Times journalist wants to write an article about you and your online community. * You don&#8217;t want to face that you have threatened your own well being and you fear that exposure of &hellip; <a href=\"https:\/\/lukeford.net\/blog\/?p=137240\">Continue reading <span class=\"meta-nav\">&rarr;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"om_disable_all_campaigns":false,"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[79],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-137240","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-internet"],"aioseo_notices":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/lukeford.net\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/137240","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/lukeford.net\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/lukeford.net\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lukeford.net\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lukeford.net\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=137240"}],"version-history":[{"count":19,"href":"https:\/\/lukeford.net\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/137240\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":137262,"href":"https:\/\/lukeford.net\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/137240\/revisions\/137262"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lukeford.net\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=137240"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lukeford.net\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=137240"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lukeford.net\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=137240"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}