> It's only certain strains of right-leaning governments that > figure out you can grow the pie so rich and poor alike become > wealthier.

Credit to a few. Roger Douglas in New Zealand. Contemporary Peter Walsh in Australia, the Hawke finance minister, also got it. Keating somewhat got it, and put his neck on the line for politically-difficult but structurally-easy growth-pie macro reforms as treasurer, but did not follow through for the politically-difficult and structurally-hard reforms, like wholesale sales tax, and then became a fixed-pie prime minister. Walsh was gone by then.

Howard/Costello era in Australia. Reagan 80s. Pinochet - fits your criteria.

Arden is indefensible. She increased the size of government, decreased social cohesion via critical theory, housing promises went nowhere. Worse balance sheet, worse outcomes, across the board.

Howard era policies have strongly contributed to the housing problems in Australia today. His policies were short sighted.

If not a GST, what do you think was the appropriate reform to the indirect tax system?

Well for a start, he outright lied about the introduction of the GST. Not once, but twice. First that he would never introduce one, second that it would replace other sales taxes to simplify the system.

Well, neither of those were true, and gst we got was used to cut taxes to the wealthy and as a bargaining chip to reduce the power of the states. It is inherently regressive, the implementation increases the tax burden on businesses, and it did't even raise enough revenue to allow them to simplify the tax system.

For all your words, you have dodged the only question of my last post.

By the late 80s, the wholesale sales tax was creaking at the seams. Toys were taxed at 24% but luxury goods at 0%. Also it was complex and expensive to administer. The wholesales sales tax was awful public policy.

Keating knew the GST was good policy, but lacked the conviction to stand up to “jellyback” Hawke (Walsh’s characterisation) and his caucus for it. Keating had taken it to the Tax Summit as his preferred policy “Option C”. Lacking meaningful policies of his own, Keating won the 93 election on a platform of opposing the GST and could not engage in reform as a result.

In the aftermath of the 93 election, Howard said never ever to a GST. Then, during government, cabinet and treasury looked at the indirect taxation mess and concluded that the GST was the optimal policy.

They could have done several things at this point. They could have done nothing, and focused on holding onto power, as Keating had done. They could have dressed it up as a VAT. Or they could have just introduced it with their majority. Instead, Howard gave a speech where he plainly recognised that he had said never, and said he had made a mistake, and his conviction was it was the right policy.

He then called an early election, in full knowledge that he was bad in the polls, and made the GST cause the centrepiece of that campaign.

This was the greatest act of political courage and decency of our lifetime. They risked everything on that conviction. Costello then ran a meticulous publicity campaign in which he made not a single mistake to open ground to the rerun of the ALP scare campaign. Against those odds, the Coalition won the election and made the reform, which now has bipartisan support.

But if you think there was a better reform to the indirect tax system available, let’s hear it.

>This was the greatest act of political courage and decency of our lifetime.

What a frighteningly hyperbolic thing to say. I think you have been watching too much sky news.

It was a cynical play at retaining gov in the face of what was sure to be, and what was, a massive swing against the gov.

Anyways, I already outlined the issues with the implementation of the tax. I don't need to repeat myself.

Howard may have talked a lot about decreasing the size of government, cutting red tape, and reducing legislation and the cost of government. But all these increased under his terms.

Most of the early economic gain was due to the opening up of Australia in the nineties along with the floating of the dollar.

Dude was a dog whistling neo con, so I never liked him. But what is really telling is that the shitshow that is the current Australian housing crisis was foretold and discussed at length in the late nineties when he introduced the changes to cgt and ng.

He and everyone else knew what would happen even then with these changes. The liberal party thesis, openly discussed, was to prioritise legislation that would promote individualisation in order to break unions and get people to vote against their interests.

Plenty written about the other two you mention. Maybe you should read some of it.

and fuck.. pinochet?

arden is indefensible, but you like pinochet? your barometer for a good right wing government improving the quality of life is an actual dictator who tortured and murdered thousands of people?

and.. fuck pinochet.

"did exactly what you needed and nothing more" You can still do that. Build a config for openbox or dwm. While the wm still compiles you can ignore the fads.

Do you dislike type inheritance? Or only implementation inheritance? My view is that type inheritance is incredibly useful, both for single system programming, and rpc. Whereas implementation inheritance creates brittle systems.

"The only difference is how it presents itself to the switch (ie, says its a Cisco optic), not actual difference in performance."

That's not the only difference. I have had situations where I ran equivalent optics side-by-side, and then touched one and it was hot, and touched the other and it was not hot. They do contain different components. In the case of that test - the atgbics SFP was cool, and the other clone unit was hot. My dealer was able to get me in contact with someone technical at atgbics (the cool-running unit) who explained the difference, "The DSP might be say 13nm where more modern more expensive ones are 5nm."

But you definitely do not need to pay for "genuine" optics to get high-reliability optics. You just need to shop around the clones - atgbics is a clone.

Before I comment, a disclaimer about my small scale. I am running probably three hundred SFP+s running and less than five years of experience with optics. I don't have stock tracking for the individual manufacturers, and the failure rate comments here are based on gut-feel only. (there will be other people here used to far larger scales)

I bucket it into there being three options: genuine, clone, and good-clone.

We had a bad run with fs.com QSFP+s. Their SFP+s have been better to me, but reckon I have had a couple fail.

Atgbics SFP+s have been a reliable clone supplier for us. I don't think I have had any of those fail, and they have been my main vendor for a while now. You can order them programmed with personalities for Cisco, etc.

Part of the edge of fs.com is that it is so easy to place an order and get fast delivery. My main site is in another country to where I live, and I do a few trips a year. Several times they have made low-notice projects possible.

We accidentally ordered a load of “Generic brand” 100G QSFP from FS. Everything worked and appeared fine from the perspective of the switch and cards, reported OK status for everything, _except_ the lasers never turned on. Switching to an Extreme switch made the switch end work fine, but not the server.

Turns out Mellanox/NVIDIA hardware are _really_ picky about their cards. We bought a box from FS that reprogrammed the compatibility firmware and they worked instantly (FS also offered to return and reprogram but we needed it fast).

This was a big shock after dealing with nothing but CAT5/6/RJ45 that has been stable and common for decades (?).

> Atgbics SFP+s have been a reliable clone supplier for us.

With the caveat that I'm a USian and my scale is even lower than yours (10 10gbit SFP+ modules in my apartment combination home, office, and lab, running trouble-free for the past three years) I've found 10Gtek to be a reliable supplier. You can order 10gbit SFP+ modules straight from them for 14USD per per module. Though, shipping costs straight from them is currently pretty terrible: $35 if you're spending less than $800.

Stores like Newegg will often meet or beat that per-module price and offer free shipping if you buy a bundle of four or more... but modules with the personality you want may not be in stock.

Valve is not the market-maker here, they are the exchange.

Don’t they also 100% control the supply though?

Yes, Valve controls supply. That strengthens my point.

Market makers do not control the supply of goods. They provide resting liquidity for pre-existing goods.

Similarly, market makers do not get to establish rules of the of their own "reality". Market makers are participants in a venue. It is the venue/exchange that sets the rules.

User Bengalilol seems to have inferred that because Valve made the venue, he can refer to them as the "market maker". This is not correct. Words have meaning. The meaning of market-maker is well-established in the context of exchanges. Market maker is incorrect terminology for Valve’s role.

Microserfs?

Without convenience it will not be successful as a common currency. It does not need convenience to succeed in other ways. For example, as a store of value.

Sorry, I should have been more specific. "Succeed as a common currency" is more-so what I meant, I think the store of value argument stands.

Literally any scarce and durable good can be a store of value. A pound of Osmium is about a million bucks. So building massive server farms to store something equivalent to an inert rock is kind of uninteresting.

I tend to run my tmux session for months at a time on my office workstation. When I remote in to that computer, I can type ‘tmux attach’ and all my context is there. I might have four long arc dev projects running at once, and my planning system, all within those windows.

On our datacentre servers, I also have tmux running. It is fast to connect to these hosts, attach tmux and continue from where I left off.

Another use case: it is common for corporates to require devs to use windows desktops, but to then give them a headless linux host in a datacentre for development work. Here, you use putty to connect to the linux host, fullscreen it, run tmux. On your desktop you have outlook and office and putty and a browser and no dev tools. You can do all your planning and dev work on the linux host, using your favourite ten thousand hours text editor and building your own tools, and this becomes your hub. You lose awareness that you are connected to this from a locked down windows host. Corporate security reboots your windows host for patching several nights in a row, and it does not cause you any hassle because your work context is in the tmux session on another host.