cturner

The fact that people care a lot about Unix clones is significant, though. nine_k could have been more effective in arguing the point, but it seems like a strong point to argue. Do you think you Go is flexible enough to write a Unix clone with performance equivalent to a C-unix? If so, why has it not been done?

On a system of that era, some scenes look far smoother with the GUS than SB16. With the GUS running, the CPU could focus on graphics because the audio was offloaded to the GUS. This was particularly true of the 3d flight scene.

Something that undermines the operating system angle is that emacs does not implement hardware drivers. All interaction with the computer go via system calls.

Norton Commander contains a text editor. Emacs operates at that level, whilst being reprogrammable.

What you say seems true. But a comment - there are more effective ways to achieve it than a bill of rights. Australia doesn’t have a bill of rights but does have decent due process, as a result of deliberate legislation. The bill of rights leads to the US Supreme Court being highly politicised because it is a nasty undemocratic backdoor to synthetic legislation. Australia does not have a politicised high court.

I have built large systems on python that use classes, for more than ten years. I came to it from Java, ten years.

As a rule, I avoid implementation inheritance. Occasionally I need to facade a library that assumes implementation inheritance to avoid it spreading into my codebase.

When the codebase hits a certain size, I hand-roll some decorators to create functionality like java interfaces. With that done, and a suite of acceptance tests, I find it scales up well.

This is a rough history from an outsider: the original developers (“DevTeam”) went quiet, and would not take in new talent. There was some new talent in the community, and momentum for code tidy up and new features. One group forked and called theirs nethack 4. There were other forks with a similar spirit, such as unnethack. Eventually, DevTeam decided to reach an accommodation with talent in the fork groups. Release 5 is a DevTeam release with input from what was new blood fifteen years ago.

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.

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

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.

"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.

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.

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

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.

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.

Summary: The mainstream ear has changed. As a result, traditional choral compositions have become less accessible to mainstream audiences, but the form of choral music remains accessible. People who participate in choral music train themselves into a traditional taste as a side-effect of participation.

Sung pentatonic music seems to be accessible to everyone from a young age.

For most things beyond that, our brains need exposure to the form to be able to appreciate it. This affects rhythm, melody and instruments.

My three-year-old hates the sound of guitar distortion. I am confident he will acclimatise to it.

Accessibility of traditional choral music will be influenced by what the audience knows. People who grew up with sung carols on at Christmas will be more open to it than people who have grown up with post-war pop Christmas.

Everyone now living in the developed world has been exposed to beat-backed major/minor easy-listening music by television, films, car radio and shopping centres. This is recent. People a hundred years ago did not have the same ear. The large choral work Elijah was easy-listening to audiences who had heard sung mass hundreds of times.

In 2025, a church music director wanting a twentieth century composer would schedule Rutter easily - Rutter writes music that suits the ear of pop Christmas. They would prefer Howells if they thought the congregation had a more traditional ear. They would schedule Messiaen only for a particular occasion.

The OP wrote - "It has struck me that most recommenders and lovers of choral music [are] themselves singers (or conductors) of choral music."

It is easy to get involved, so many people who are curious get involved. Once involved, people will find their tastes becoming traditional as a side-effect of exposure to the repertoire. This creates a running division between people who participate and the mainstream.

Note that before seventy years ago, almost everyone who loved music would have participated in it, even if only singing to young children or helping out at church. Outside royal circles, the practice of loving music yet being a pure consumer is a recent phenomenon.

Some forms of choral music will have a different relationship with pop than high-church music. For example - Gospel, accompaniment to rock songs like /Under the Bridge/ or /You can't always get what you want/. The Beatles were a mainstay of post-war pop, but /Because/ on Abbey Road has the character of a Renaissance choral work - George Martin was classically trained.

The mainstream ear may be making another shift now to more sophisticated beats with closer melodies (smaller pitch jumps) and simpler chords. If it happens, we will see evidence of it in popular Christmas music. As far as I know there has not been a new addition to that repertoire since /All I want for Christmas is You/ which is c20 pop.

It is a terminal multiplexer. You will be able to find youtube videos. The gp is talking about a tool called gnu screen. If you need a more distinct token to search on try “tmux”.

I want to ask about the bureaucracy aspect. I have never written a science grant application, but expect that some of it comes about because the applications want to ensure good governance around the proposals. Do you agree? For the fluff that genuinely has no productive value, do you have any explanation for why it is there?

Could LLM participation be blowing holes in good-governance measures that were only weakly effective, and therefore a good thing in the long-term? Could the rise in the practice drive grants arrangements to better governance?

My comment did not talk about where awk is useful today.

Unix gurus will recommend awk as a pattern matching and substitution tool.

But my comment was about awk the vanguard imperative scripting language. I don't know of anyone who recommends use of awk's imperative style over python in 2025.

As an exercise, I tried writing a simple roguelike in awk in an imperative style. Within twenty minutes, it felt obvious where perl came from.

I came here to write - I think awk would fit in the list.

Awk is sold on pattern matching, and there are earlier technologies that do pattern-matching - ML, SNOBOL.

But awk's historic significance is something else: it was the embryonic scripting language. You could use it in an imperative manner, and in 1977 that showed a new path to interacting with a unix system. It allowed you to combine arithmetic, string manipulation, and limited forms of structured data processing in a single process without using a compiler.

Two language schools grew from imperative awk. (1) The scripting language that expose convenient access to filesystem and OS syscalls like perl/pike/python/ruby; (2) The tool control languages like tcl/lua/io.

It may also have influenced shell programming. Note that awk was released before the Bourne shell.

You seem to have a chip on your shoulder about Christianity, and that's your right. But in the course of that you may overlook that faith-based treatment of problems is a powerful tool that serves some people well. Consider the culture of people taking a break from alcohol over Lent for several weeks each year.

It depends what you use it for. I worked on a interbank messaging platform that normalised everything into a series of standard xml formats, and then used xslt for representing data to the client. Common use case - we could rerender data to what a receiver’s risk system were expecting in config (not compiled code). You could have people trained in xslt doing that, they did not need to be more experienced developers. Fixes were fast. It was good for this. Another time i worked on a production pipeline for a publisher of education books. Again, data stored in normalised xml. Xslt is well suited to mangling in that scenario.

In the UK the government has somewhat gone after banks at a that level - money transfers. When someone falls for a scam and transfers money to a scammer, the government often makes the call that the bank is at fault for that. This is the absolute laziest thing the government could do, because it allocates all responsibility to the last line of defence rather than being an intelligent response to the problem.

This has led to the situation that doing a wire transfer regularly leads to intervention by the bank’s anti fraud team. This attitude has created a huge cost and risk overhead for all the banks, it forces inconvenience on consumers, and it hurts productivity of the economy.

A better way to combat fraud would be to drive improvements to the telephone network. Regulate to make the networks enforce accuracy of the phone numbers they are displaying, give the feature to reliably blacklist phone numbers, make the phone providers monitor for patterns of behaviour that look like scammer or mass marketing activity. There is no good reason that the phone companies should not have been expected to reach these standards decades ago. These fixes would assist with other law enforcement matters, such as tracing prank emergency services calls. But it requires meaningful work from policy makers, and it is not glamorous, so that never gets done.

UI concerns need to be in service to the full set of requirements and the data model.

UIs are easily accessible to end-users and product-managers, and can allow people to focus on a subset of the requirements. The trap is to allow the UI perspective to direct the development process.

It is vital to set an expectation with customers that allows discussion about UI matters as part of requirements discovery, but where they expect it to churn. During early development UI should be rough and should churn constantly in response to changes of more foundational matters: the business requirements, the data model, concurrency matters, interactions with other systems and the deployment.

I have in the region of 200 piano rolls in London. Classical emphasis, for example, lots of bach and beethoven. The piano player itself is long gone. The roll collection has been picked over, there will be no monetary high value items. If anyone wants the collection, we could coordinate, I am cratuki at the google service.

In the study, the subjects have access to both reference books and phones to allow them to look these things up. I didn't know Michaelmas Term either and looked it up while I was reading.

I am doubtful that this is about people not reading as hard and often. Alternate hypothesis: the problem is that people are not thinking as hard and often.