AUKUS and the Piranha Brothers Sketch
And other fine things I found on the net
AUKUS and the Piranha Brothers
You might recall how Monty Python’s Piranha Brothers got their start in crime. They hit upon The Operation. They threatened to beat people up if they paid the protection money. Then they hit upon The Other Operation. This involved not beating people up if they didn’t pay the protection money. Finally they hit upon the Other, Other Operation. This involved beating people up if they didn’t pay the protection money. This for the Piranha Brothers was the turning point.
Australia’s Operation to get itself some nuclear submarines has yet to go through this bracing process. The current operation involves paying the best part of $400 billion dollars (though it will presumably be far more than that when we’re finished) and then the Americans will supply us with some submarines unless they think it inconvenient (And when is it convenient to part with a $30 billion asset?)
Anyway, Dr Albert Palazzo, Adjunct Professor at the University of New South Wales explains that this is a repeat of the Singapore option. As he writes
The fall of Singapore and Britain’s failure to meet its obligations should be an object lesson for today’s political leaders, yet it is one the government seems determined to overlook.
Then, as he goes on to explain, this isn’t quite right because if the Americans don’t supply the subs, they’re still meeting their obligations which are to deliver the subs unless they don’t want to. This is actually happening. We have signed this agreement. Anyway, here is an article that tries to take this arrangement seriously.
On 12 August the Australian Government tabled a new AUKUS document in parliament. The Albanese government has cleared the next hurdle in its quest to obtain nuclear-powered submarines. The agreement allows and regulates the transfer from the United States of the nuclear technologies and materials that will enable the Royal Australian Navy to operate and maintain nuclear-powered submarines.
What the government failed to spell out is that this agreement includes iron-clad Australian obligations but no guarantee in return that the US will hand over the Virginia-class boats it promises. In effect, the government has signed on to a redux of the failed and discredited Singapore Strategy of the 1920s and 30s, and in so doing has demonstrated its ignorance of the nation’s past security experiences.
In 1923 the United Kingdom agreed to dispatch the British Fleet to its base at Singapore, from which it would undertake operations against enemy warships that threatened Australia. The Singapore Strategy remained the foundation of Australia’s defence into the Second World War up to the collapse of France. Now facing Germany and Italy alone, Britain informed Australia on 19 June 1940 that the fleet would not sail for Singapore because it was needed to protect Britain’s own territory. Following the Japanese onslaught in December 1941, all the British could spare was two battleships, which were promptly sunk. …
At some level, all treaties are scraps of paper and the signatories’ fulfilment of their obligation depends on factors that may only exist at the point of crisis. They are a promise, and promises can be broken, as Britain did in 1940. This is the essence of Palmerston’s saying. What is troubling is that the Australian government has entered into an agreement which provides the party on which Australia relies with ways out that are solely of its choosing. The United States will not be in violation of the treaty if it fails to transfer the Virginias and will therefore suffer no reputational disadvantage. Instead, it will be acting on an option that Australia approved and which is entirely foreseeable.
An interesting exchange I thought.
Tim Walz’s Big Threat to the GOP
Sohrab Ahmari is a founder of Compact Magazine in which he published this piece and he’s famously a crossover conservative. And he’s worried — for the Republicans. Because Tim Walz seems to be delivering the kinds of policies he (Ahmari) believes in.
Walz’s origin story—a son of deep-rural Nebraska with degrees from Chadron State College and Minnesota State—attests to leading Democrats’ fears that Vance could deepen the class realignment of the two parties. But Walz doesn’t just bring his humble roots. He also has a formidable record of governing as a populist and Midwestern-style social democrat.
Last year, he led his state legislature’s enactment of a sweeping pro-worker law, which Steven Greenhouse, the veteran labor reporter, described as “one of the most pro-worker packages … that any US state has passed in decades.” And rightly so. Among other measures, the law:
set up a New Deal-style standards board for nursing homes, one of the most viciously exploited sectors in the labor market;
banned non-compete clauses that limit workers’ bargaining power by preventing them from seeking employment at competing firms or starting their own businesses;
required warehouses—hello, Amazon—to be transparent about the productivity requirements they impose on workers;
prohibited anti-union captive-audience meetings—one of the main tools used by union-busters to drive down the share of Americans protected by collective bargaining;
proscribed employers from forcing employees to attend political meetings, one of the most grotesque and anti-democratic forms of privatized coercion I highlighted in my book Tyranny, Inc.—and one, by the way, that empowers “woke” h.r. departments.
On the pro-family front, meanwhile, Walz marshaled a bill, the Paid Family and Medical Leave Act, which “allows Minnesota workers to take up to 12 weeks a year with partial pay to care for a newborn or sick family member and also allows workers 12 weeks to recover from a serious illness or health problem,” as Greenhouse reported. It’s the sort of legislation that self-proclaimed pro-family Republicans have too long resisted, even as they have lamented declining marriage and birth rates.
All this should be a wake-up alarm for the Trump-Vance campaign.
krakani lumi - wukalina
krakani-lumi - 'resting place' - is a standing camp within the wukalina/Mt William National Park for a cultural walk that is guided and operated by the Aboriginal Land Council of Tasmania.
Photos below. Further details here.
Henry Farrell on what went wrong with the silicon valley right
Nice to see Henry Farrell explain what’s so off the beam about the silicon valley bros political ideas. It’s the usual story — some good analysis of what’s wrong, and then the motivated impatience of a quick, self-serving solution.
The accumulated wisdom of the ages seems to have very encouraging things to say about tech entrepreneurs, when read through the right lenses. Just one weird trick—remaking global geopolitics around the model of Silicon Valley start-ups—will foster all the freedom and prosperity one could reasonably ask for. The very best way for humanity to spread to the stars, and perhaps even remake the universe, is to just let Silicon Valley engineers do their thing. A new life awaits in the off-world colonies, provided only that the demands of officious bureaucrats, mendacious East Coast journalists, social justice whiners, and other enemies of progress are swept into the midden.
But the contradictions become clear if you squint even a little. Silicon Valley entrepreneurs genuinely have a great amount to be proud of—some of their technological innovations have become cornerstones of modern society. Yet business plans and contemporary political spats are insecure foundations for grand theories of the deep future of human civilization and politics—a truth vividly illustrated when Silk Road’s [utopian libertarian] founder attempted to hire hit men to stamp out extortionists, hastening the business’s demise. Profit models are not philosophies, and should not be gussied up as such, festooned with purloined intellectual gew-gaws and other pirate fineries. Serious thinkers should not be pressed into service merely as propagandists for the cause.
The problem is not that arguments for freedom and technological innovation are stupid or wicked. They are not. It is that political theory can’t do its proper job when it becomes an instrument of self-justification and self-soothing. It is very easy for highly intelligent people to find arguments and justifications for why they are right and ought to be allowed to do exactly what they want. This becomes even easier when they are surrounded by others who agree with them and sometimes even venerate them. The cryptographer Bruce Schneier is famous for Schneier’s law: the dictum that anyone can invent a security system so clever that he or she can’t break it. Cognitive psychologists Hugo Mercier and Dan Sperber have shown that much the same is true for arguments. Anyone can make a political case so compelling that he or she can’t see the flaws in it. …
The lessons are straightforward, even if they jar painfully with some common myths in the Valley. Actual free markets require a state that is both powerful and constrained. Real technological progress is not solely generated by risk-taking entrepreneur-heroes in a social vacuum. It is also the contingent by-product of a fragile set of common social and political arrangements. Without constitutional constraints, voluntary interactions tend, as Silk Road did, to degenerate into gangster capitalism. And the trick of creating a vibrant open order is not to try to escape the sordid bargains of politics, or to eliminate your enemies, but to channel disagreement usefully. You cannot escape the company of those whom you detest, however unpleasant you may find it—that is the fundamental premise of the open society. When you try, you discover (as many libertarian schemers looking to improve the human condition have discovered) that you bring the disagreements along with you. You have to figure out ways to live with those who oppose you and whom you oppose, and ideally to derive collective benefit from your mutual vexations.
The friendliest social network you’ve never heard of
An interesting article about a social media network that’s civil, helpful and which contributes to the social glue of its community — as opposed to eating it away like traditional social media. HT: Jim Savage.
On Front Porch Forum, there’s no real-time feed, no like button, no recommendation algorithm and no way to reach audiences beyond your local community. It offers users no reward for posting something provocative or sensational, other than the prospect that your neighbors will see it and perhaps bring it up the next time you run into them at the grocery store.
The company “ultimately exists to stimulate real-world interactions among neighbors,” said its founder and CEO, Michael Wood-Lewis. “It doesn’t exist to be an online metaverse. We’re not trying to hold people’s attention online 24/7. We’d love people’s attention for 10 minutes a day.”
While most tech giants view content moderation as a necessary evil, Front Porch Forum treats it as a core function. Twelve of its 30 full-time employees spend their days reading every user post before it’s published, rejecting any that break its rules against personal attacks, misinformation or spam.
The process is slow and laborious, but it seems to work. Front Porch Forum is the highest-scoring platform ever on New Public’s “Civic Signals” criteria, which attempt to measure the health of online communities. …
[I]n a town whose local paper comes out just once a week, Front Porch Forum is also a hub for political discussions, Zenaty said. … The debate over … divisive issues stayed civil, if sometimes testy, on Front Porch Forum. If anyone tried to post an ad hominem attack or denigrate a group of people, there was no evidence of it; such posts are typically rejected by the forum’s moderators before publication. …
Wood-Lewis launched Front Porch Forum in 40 Vermont neighborhoods in 2006 after several years running a neighborhood internet mailing list in Burlington. … An engineer by training, Wood-Lewis was constantly tinkering with different ways of running the mailing list.
Should users be anonymous or identified by their real names? (Real names were best for building community, he decided.) Should people outside a neighborhood be allowed to join? (Not if you wanted to keep it feeling safe and intimate.) What about local businesses? (Sure, but they have to pay to advertise; local ads make up most of the company’s revenue.) Should any topics be off-limits? (Not necessarily, but certain behaviors should be.)
Most of all, he learned what the moderator of almost any successful online forum learns: If you don’t set and strongly enforce rules for how people can talk to each other, things will get ugly in a hurry. …
Front Porch Forum caught on quickly and began expanding across the state. In 2011, it played a leading role in mutual aid during major flooding. Growth surged again during the pandemic lockdowns of 2020, when people used the site to offer masks and coordinate grocery drop-offs for elderly neighbors. Flooding the last two years spurred fresh bursts of sign-ups and activity, with the site now claiming 235,000 active members in a state with about 265,000 households.
While Elon Musk’s X and Mark Zuckerberg’s Meta have sought to frame their networks as forums for free speech, Wood-Lewis said he thinks of Front Porch Forum more like a corner pub. If a patron starts making a ruckus, moderators ask him to tone it down — then toss him out if he doesn’t comply. …
New_ Public’s survey of more than 13,000 Front Porch users, led by University of Texas at Austin communications professor Talia Stroud, found that 81 percent reported feeling like the site makes them a “more informed citizen.” Just 26 percent of respondents said the same about Facebook and 32 percent about Nextdoor. Respondents were also more likely to report feeling safe and free to speak their minds on Front Porch Forum than on other social networks. …
While Wood-Lewis is experimenting with an expansion into Western Massachusetts and Upstate New York, he said he intends to keep it to a manageable size, and he has rejected offers to sell it to a larger company.
“I agree that something like we’re doing is needed in a way that’s not being provided in the vast majority of the country,” he said. “But if you scale up a successful small enterprise, you by definition will lose what’s special about it.” And that is something Vermonters would likely protest — civilly, of course.
Peter Dutton’s contribution to good government
As Tony Abbott showed, the art of opposition is — well opposition. If an Opposition negotiates in good faith with a government and a good compromise is arrived at, the government will get the credit, not the Opposition. So I was intrigued and grateful to the Opposition for agreeing to wave through major contributions to containing cost blowouts with the NDIS and in aged care. But some major steps have been taken as Phil Coorey reported this week.
(Just right-click and choose “open image in new tab” and chances are, you’ll be able to read the article).
Milton Friedman at his brilliant best
Friedman brought fluency into battle in the war between capitalism and communism. Fair enough too. There’s a lot of poppycock talked about ending capitalism. This two minute burst really is brilliant.
But just between you and me, once you’ve worked out that you need markets, he’s answering the wrong question. The question is ‘how do we configure the public and private goods to live a good life?’ And the answer is ‘with the right configuration of competition and collaboration within our institutions’.
Competition without cooperation is a hellscape. As is cooperation without competition. But, the high priest of ‘markets are better than governments and the Atlantic Ocean is a better ocean than the Pacific Ocean’ was very convincing. And there was some serious money and power backing him. And look at the mess they made!
Jeff Sachs offers a few thoughts on his country
A tweet thread with some very cool buildings
Nick Cave on hope and keeping cynicism at bay
HT: Paul Nicolarakis
Heaviosity half-hour
Montaigne on Anger
31
Of anger
APlutarch is admirable throughout, but especially where he judges human actions. We may see the fine things that he says in the comparison of Lycurgus and Numa, apropos of our great foolishness in abandoning children to the government and responsibility of their fathers.
CMost of our states, as Aristotle says, leave to each man, in the manner of the Cyclopes, the guidance of their wives and children according to his own foolish and thoughtless fancy; and the Lacedaemonian and Cretan are almost the only ones which have committed the education of children to the laws. AWho does not see that in a state everything depends on their education and nurture? And yet, without any discernment, they are left to the mercy of the parents, however foolish and wicked these may be.
Among other things, how many times have I had a good mind, as I passed along our streets, to set up some trick to avenge little boys that I saw being flayed, knocked down, and bruised by some father or mother in a fury and frenzy of anger! You can see the fire and rage coming out of their eyes—
BBuming with rage within, they’re borne
Down headlong, just like boulders from a mountain torn;
The ground gives way beneath, the hanging slope falls in
JUVENAL
(and according to Hippocrates, the most dangerous maladies are those which disfigure the face)—Awith a cutting, explosive voice, often against one who has just left its nurse’s breast. And then see them, lamed and made stupid with blows; and our justice taking no account of it, as if these maimings and dislocations were not happening to members of our commonwealth:
B’Tis good you’ve given to the people and the state
A citizen, if for the state you make him fit,
In farming, war, or peace, doing his useful bit.
JUVENAL
AThere is no passion that so shakes the clarity of our judgment as anger. No one would hesitate to punish with death a judge who had condemned his criminal through anger. Why is it any more permissible for fathers and schoolmasters to whip and chastise children when they are in anger? It is no longer correction, it is vengeance. Chastisement takes the place of a medicine for children; and would we tolerate a doctor who was incensed and angry with his patient?
To behave rightly, we ourselves should never lay a hand on our servants as long as our anger lasts. While our pulse beats and we feel emotion, let us put off the business. Things will truly seem different to us when we have quieted and cooled down. It is passion that is in command at first, it is passion that speaks, it is not we ourselves.
BSeen through it, faults appear greater to us, like bodies seen through a mist. Let a hungry man use meat; but a man who wants to use punishment should neither hunger nor thirst for it.
AAnd then, the punishments that are inflicted with deliberation and discernment are better received and with more benefit by him who suffers them. Otherwise he thinks he has been condemned unjustly by a man agitated by wrath and fury, and alleges in his own justification the extraordinary movements of his master, his inflamed face, his unaccustomed oaths, his excitement, and his heedless precipitancy:
BThe veins grow black with blood, the whole face swells with ire,
More fiercely flash the eyes than with the Gorgon’s fire.
OVID
ASuetonius relates that when Lucius Satuminus1 had been condemned by Caesar, what helped him most with the people (to whom he appealed) and made him win his case was the animosity and bitterness that Caesar had brought to that judgment.
Saying is one thing and doing is another. We must consider the preaching apart from the preacher. Those men have given themselves an easy game who, in our time, have tried to attack the truth of our Church through the vices of her ministers; she draws her testimony from elsewhere. It is a stupid way of arguing, which would throw all things back into confusion. A man of good morals may have false opinions, and a wicked man may preach the truth, yes, even a man who does not believe it. No doubt it is a beautiful harmony when doing and saying go together, and I do not want to deny that words are of greater authority and efficacy when actions follow.
As Eudamidas said on hearing a philosopher discourse on war: “These remarks are fine, but the man who is speaking them is not to be believed, for he does not have ears accustomed to the sound of the trumpet.” And Cleomenes, hearing a rhetorician haranguing about valor, burst into loud laughter; and, when the other took offense, he said to him: “I would do the same if it were a swallow that was talking about it; but if it were an eagle, I would gladly hear him.”
I observe in the writings of the ancients, it seems to me, that the man who says what he thinks strikes home much more forcefully than the man who pretends. Listen to Cicero speaking of the love of liberty, and listen to Brutus on the subject. The writings themselves ring out to you that the latter was a man to buy it at the price of life. Let Cicero, the father of eloquence, treat of the contempt of death, and let Seneca treat of it too. The former drags it out languidly, and you feel that he wants to persuade you of something of which he is not persuaded; he gives you no heart, for he has none himself. The other animates and inflames you. I never read an author, especially of those who treat of virtue and duties, that I do not inquire curiously what kind of a man he was.
BFor the ephors at Sparta, seeing a dissolute man propose a useful piece of advice to the people, commanded him to be silent and asked a good man to claim the idea and propose it.
APlutarch’s writings, if we savor them aright, reveal him to us well enough, and I think I know him even into his soul; yet I wish we had some memoirs of his life. And I have embarked on this digression apropos of the gratitude I feel toward Aulus Gellius for having left us in writing this story about his character, which concerns my subject of anger. A slave of his, a bad and vicious man, but one whose ears were pretty well filled with the lessons of philosophy, having for some fault of his been stripped by Plutarch’s command, at first muttered, while he was being whipped, that he was punished without reason and that he had done nothing. But finally, starting to shout and to abuse his master in good earnest, he reproached him with not being a philosopher, as he boasted: for he had often heard him say that it was ugly to get angry—indeed, he had written a book about it—and the fact that right then, all plunged in anger, he was having him so cruelly beaten, completely belied his writings. To which Plutarch, all coldly and sedately, said: “How is this, clown, by what do you judge that I am angry at this moment? Does my face, my voice, my color, my speech, give you any evidence that I am excited? I do not think that my eyes are wild, my face agitated, my voice terrifying. Am I red? Am I foaming at the mouth? Does any word escape me that I shall have to repent? Am I quivering? Am I trembling with rage? For I tell you, those are the true signs of anger.” And then, turning to the man who was flogging him, he said: “Go right on with your job while this fellow and I are arguing.” That is his story.
Archytas of Tarentum, coming back from a war in which he had been captain-general, found everything in a mess in his household, and his lands lying fallow through the bad management of his steward; and having sent for him, he said: “Go; if I were not angry I would thrash you properly!” Plato likewise, having grown hot against one of his slaves, gave Speusippus the job of chastising him, excusing himself from putting his hand to it himself on the grounds that he was angry. Charillus, a Lacedaemonian, said to a Helot who was behaving too insolently and boldly toward him: “By the gods, if I were not angry, I would have you put to death right now.”
It is a passion that takes pleasure in itself and flatters itself. How many times, when we have got in stride for a wrong reason, if we are offered some good defense or excuse, we are vexed even at truth and innocence! In this connection I remember an amazing example from antiquity. Piso, a person of notable virtue in everything else, having become incensed at one of his soldiers because, returning alone from foraging, he could give him no account of where he had left a companion of his, took it for certain that he had killed him, and promptly condemned him to death. As he was at the gibbet, along comes this lost companion. The whole army made a great celebration about it, and after many hugs and embraces by the two comrades the executioner took them both into the presence of Piso, everyone present expecting confidently that it would be a great pleasure to him also. But it was quite the reverse. For through shame and vexation his fury, which was still in power, doubled; and by a subtle trick that his passion promptly suggested to him, he made the three of them guilty because he had found one of them to be innocent, and had all three dispatched: the first soldier because there was a sentence against him; the second, who had gotten lost, because he was the cause of his companion’s death; and the executioner for not having obeyed the command that had been given him.
BThose who have to deal with headstrong women may have experienced what a rage they are thrown into when we oppose silence and coldness to their agitation, and disdain to feed their rage. The orator Coelius was prodigiously choleric by nature. To one who was supping in his company, a man gentle and mild in conversation and who, in order not to excite him, took the course of approving and assenting to everything he said, he, unable to endure his spleen venting itself thus without nourishment, said: “By all the gods, contradict me in something, will you, so that we may be two.” Likewise the women get angry only so that we may get angry in turn, in imitation of the laws of love. Phocion, to a man who was interrupting his talk by abusing him violently, did nothing but be silent and give him full opportunity to exhaust his anger; this done, with no mention of this disturbance, he resumed his talk at the place where he had left off. There is no retort so stinging as such contempt.
Of the most choleric man in France (and anger is always an imperfection, but more excusable in a military man, for in that profession there are certainly occasions that cannot do without it) I often say that he is the most patient man I know in curbing his anger: it agitates him with such violence and fury—
So, when with crackling flames a caldron fries,
The bubbling waters from the bottom rise;
Above the brim they force their fiery way;
Black vapors climb aloft, and cloud the day.
VIRGIL
—that he has to constrain himself cruelly to moderate it. And for my part, I know of no passion that I could make such an effort to conceal and resist. I would not put wisdom at so high a price. I do not consider so much what he does as how much it costs him not to do worse.
Another was boasting to me of the self-control and mildness of his behavior, which is indeed singular. I said to him that it was indeed something, especially in people of eminent rank like himself, whom everyone watches, to present themselves always very even-tempered to the world; but that the main thing was to make provision for the inside and for oneself, and that to my taste it was not good management of one’s affairs to eat one’s heart out; which I was afraid he did in order to maintain this mask and this controlled appearance on the outside.
We incorporate anger by hiding it; as Diogenes said to Demosthenes, who, for fear of being seen in a tavern, was drawing back further inside it: “The further back you go, the deeper in you go.” I advise that we rather give our valet a slap on the cheek a little out of season than strain our inclination to represent this wise bearing. And I would rather produce my passions than brood over them at my expense; they grow languid when they have vent and expression. It is better that their point should operate outwardly than be turned against us. CAll vices are less weighty in the open, and most pernicious when they hide under an appearance of soundness [Seneca].
BI admonish those in my family who have the right to get angry, first, to husband their anger and not expend it at random, for that impedes its effect and its weight. Heedless and continual scolding becomes a habit and makes everyone discount it. The scolding you give a servant for stealing is not felt, because it is the very same that he has heard you use against him a hundred times for a glass badly rinsed or a stool badly placed. Second, not to get angry in the air, and to see to it that their reprimand reaches the person they are complaining about: for ordinarily they are yelling before he is in their presence and continue yelling for ages after he has left,
And petulant madness with itself contends.
CLAUDIAN
They go after their own shadow, and carry this tempest into a place where no one is punished or affected by it, except someone who has to put up with the racket of their voice. I likewise condemn in quarrels those who bluster and fume without an opponent; these rodomontades must be kept for where they will strike home:
So roars the bull his challenge to the fight,
And of his furious horns he tries the might
Against a tree, and fiercely lashes out,
And paws the sand in prelude to the bout.
VIRGIL,
When I get angry, it is as keenly, but also as briefly and privately, as I can. I do indeed lose my temper in haste and violence, but I do not lose my bearings to the point of hurling about all sorts of insulting words at random and without choice, heedless of whether I place my arrows pertinently where I think they will hurt the most (for I ordinarily use nothing but my tongue). My servants get off better on big occasions than small. The small ones take me by surprise, and bad luck will have it that once you are over the precipice it does not matter what gave you the push, you still go all the way to the bottom: the fall provides its own rushing and excitement and acceleration. On big occasions I have this satisfaction, that they are so just that everyone expects to see a reasonable anger engendered; I glory in deceiving their expectation. I tense and prepare myself against them; they disturb my brain and threaten to carry me away very far if I followed them. Easily I keep from getting into this passion, and I am strong enough, if I am expecting it, to repel its onslaught, however violent its cause; but if it once occupies and seizes me, it carries me away, however inane its cause.
This is how I bargain with those who may argue with me: When you sense that I am the first one excited, let me go my way, right or wrong; I will do the same for you in my turn. The tempest is bred only of the competition of angers, which are prone to produce one another, and are not born at the same moment. Let us give each one its head, and we shall always be at peace. A useful prescription, but hard to carry out.
Sometimes it also happens that I play angry for the governing of my house, without any real emotion. As age makes my disposition sourer, I make an effort to oppose it, and will succeed, if I can, in being henceforth all the less peevish and hard to please as I shall have more excuse and inclination to be so, although hitherto I have been among those who are least so.
AOne more word to close this chapter. Aristotle says that anger sometimes serves as a weapon for virtue and valor. That is quite likely; yet those who deny it answer humorously that it is a weapon whose use is novel. For we move other weapons, this one moves us; our hand does not guide it, it guides our hand; it holds us, we do not hold it.
Note
1 Corrected in the 1595 edition to “Caius Rabirius.”