Here's the thing
that really gets me about the China Mieville piece I just posted about. Assuming that the congruence between his article's list of projects and those in our book is not some kind of wacky coincidence, you get the following:

1) Someone who detests libertarianism decides to write an article about how libertarian seasteading is crap.
2) He uses, as a source, our book's listing of libertarian seasteading projects, most of which we think were crap.
3) He talks about how they are crap.
4) From (2), we can see that he is aware of the existence of our book. And the whole point of our book, at least as I see it, is to say "Hey, here's this really cool idea, of settling the ocean, which has heretofore been explored only by dreamers and nut cases. What happens if you try to look at it more practically, and figure out if it could realistically be done?"

At this point, he could: a) mention the existence of this useful source which also happens to be a less crazy, less easily parodizable take on the same subject, as exemplified by the fact that they agree with him about the impracticality, if not the ignobleness, of most of the projects he lists, or b) ignore it completely, because nothing should get in the way of a good story.

Maybe I'm being too academic here, but that seems kinda dishonest to me. At least intellectually, if not actionably.

I dunno, maybe I'm being egotistical in seeing his article as screaming "I just read part of the seasteading book" when he never even mentions it, but I find the fact that every time he mentioned a project I was like "Wait, I included that in the book" awfully telling. Plus he uses the seasteading term exactly as we popularized it in the book, and it's used that way almost nowhere else.

Sigh. It's not like I mind accurate, insightful dissing, which helps ideas grow and improve. But this kind of caricaturing just encourages ignorance and spreads the comfortable feeling that one's opponents are selfish and stupid.