From the other side of the Atlantic this sounds like straight Thatcherism, in which Chicago-school monetarism was an ideological anti-union weapon, and the Thatcher cabinet was not coy about it. However I think the US went that way first even if Reaganomics came later.
I think a lot of that in the US got spun up with Nixon, Reagan brought a lot of it to the mainstream though. Both of them hated unions with a passion that is for sure.
Unions are the best of all the bad solutions we’ve come up with so far for labor to compete with capital. The worst of course is collectivism through government, though that’s being tried again…
The best solution is antitrust enforcement and removal of anti-competitive laws/rules lobbied for by incumbents. When companies have to compete with each other for labor and customers, wages go up and prices go down. Whey they consolidate they can charge monopoly rents.
Unions often even make this worse because they'll latch on to a monopolistic employer and then lobby with them to retain the monopoly at the expense of all the workers who are their customers rather than their employees.
> removal of anti-competitive laws/rules lobbied for by incumbents.
If even if there are such ideas in new government, they quickly disappear over wine and steak dinners with the lobbyists.
Unfortunately this is not seen as bypass of democratic process. Nobody voted for having less rights and any bargaining power stripped and yet here we are.
That's where security services should come in (in many countries protection of democracy is their main statutory duty) - but they are not doing their job tax payers pay them to do.
Arguing that we shouldn't do something because it's hard to enact is defeatism. When it's the thing you need to do you need to do it anyway. It's not like anything else that would actually work would be easier to pass -- the thing you want is the thing they don't want.
Sure there are a number of Democratic Socialists and other progressives winning elections and driving changes but everything I’ve seen policy-wise has been directly targeted areas where unchecked capitalism has clearly failed their constituents. Even in those cases, there’s no dramatic shift towards government ownership.
> there’s no dramatic shift towards government ownership
Interesting that you mention this. It's not exactly the same thing, but someone in another thread here on HN pointed out that the feds have been acquiring non-trivial stakes in a number of companies. More than just the one or two that I had seen in headlines.
It's funny, because it's a bigger overt push in the direction of actual socialism than the dems have ever tried, by the group of people who most love to use socialism as a boogeyman.
But the argument in favor of it seemed compelling on it's face, at least worthy of debate.
So-called “homebrew” has only ever grudgingly provided the barest minimum of hooks to locally build your own variants of their packages, and compares most unfavourably to, say, maintaining your own easily-rebased fork of a BSD-style ports tree. Don’t even get me started on its janky dependency resolution, versioning, “services”, and lifecycle.
The hostility and self-righteousness from the maintainers in the thread linked above just adds to the general shittiness of using it at all, and yet somehow it seems to be the lowest common denominator choice for far too many teams I’ve worked with, I suppose by sheer inertia.
"Most of the time when someone says they are in the “North East of the UK” it’s not some Scotsman up in Shetland it is an English person who is currently in the North East of England."
Blog spam doesn’t intersperse the drivel with literary narrative beats and subsection titles that sound like sci-fi novels. The greasy mixture of superficially polished but substantively vacuous is much more pronounced in LLM output than even the most egregious human-generated content marketing, in part because the cognitive entity in the latter case is either too smart, or too stupid, to leave such a starkly evident gap.
“Ideal” outcome here is likely a lot more time investment than the 95%ile-effectiveness “good enough” outcome; and in any case, an effective exercise prescription is as personally specific - perhaps even more so - than many pharmaceutical ones, to account for physiology, morphology, age et cetera.
For example my knees are too old for shuttle runs or whatever the intended HIIT might otherwise be, but I can happily go do 500W hill efforts on the bike.
I used to do something like this but with ZFS on an OpenSolaris / Illumos storage server, exporting copy-on-write clones of snapshots of iSCSI volumes to boot Xen VMs on neighbouring blades, with tagged VLANs from each host because there were multiple guests to launch with varying roles in the application cluster. We made the VLAN number match 12 bits of the IP addresses and numbered the clones similarly. It merely remained to create new snapshots every release and any dev could launch an bugfix/test/showcase/etc environment for that version, and connect to it via a VPN. I was always worried about scale if we hired more than 4096 developers but fortunately the company was acquired and its product discontinued before that happened.
That was in 2007 so the control plane (scheduler and automation) were built from scratch and we had very few reference points for the overall design. If I was building that today I’d probably still use ZFS clones but at filesystem level instead of block devices, and serve jails over NFS if I can get away with it, the iSCSI part was always a little janky.
