I don't believe the bankruptcy clawback provisions you're referring to apply here, because this is an FDIC conservatorship/receivership, not a bankruptcy proceeding. I don't fully understand why this particular part of the processes differs, but I'd argue it's that it does unfortunate, as it incentivizes bank runs like this.
There is an extensive comparison of the two processes in [1]. Specifically:
> the Bankruptcy Code provides trustees the authority to avoid, that is, claw-back or reverse, certain transfers (subject to certain limitations52) made by debtors
> the FDIC as conservator or receiver may not avoid (i.e., reverse or claw-back) any property transfer pursuant to a qualified financial contract unless the transfer was performed with the "actual intent to hinder, delay, or defraud."
I do love a CRS report, but that was written before Dodd–Frank imported the bankruptcy code rules for preferential transfers into FDIC receivership.
> The Corporation as receiver for any covered financial company may avoid a transfer of an interest of the covered financial company in property [...] that enables the creditor to receive more than the creditor would receive if [...] the covered financial company had been liquidated under chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code... (12 U.S.C. 5390(a)(11)(b))
It also calls the 90-day clawback period out explicitly.
to be clear: you're calculating embeddings based on the timestamped transcript, yes? or are you doing something with the actual video content? what are you using for the embeddings?
If you have a low-volume, non-performant, non-critical database, k8s is fine. If you need it to perform and/or need built-in ops (managed backups or replication), use a managed service.
k8s _can_ do stateful, but if a managed service exists for this workload, use it. It is not about _can_ I run it on k8s, it is a _should_ question. Is it worth the cumulative effort required to achieve the same degree of quality.
Actually, "Year of Birth" appears to be one of the voter file fields too. Not quite the same as an exact birth date (esp for identity theft purposes), but useful for demographic targeting.
It's interesting how concerns around the long-term effects of EMF exposure that we heard about fairly frequently in the early days of widespread cell phone usage seem to have virtually disappeared from the public consciousness, despite, AFAICT, not really ever being answered. Meanwhile usage, power output, and proximity (BT headphones, ie. RF transmitters in your head for hours at a time?) are all increasing.
Much of the research (and the FCC's regulatory regime) has traditionally used a model based on cell PHONE usage ie testing for effects of relatively short periods of exposure, with the phone beside the head, where the skull acts as a shield[1]. But these assumptions aren't applicable to smartphone usage today, where 90% of people under 35 have been sleeping with their phones for years[2], and most usage involves the screen in front of the face, where there are large areas of only soft tissue (eyes & nasal cavity) between the device and your brain.
Furthermore, most testing largely centers around Specific Absorption Rate (SAR), which is basically concerned with the question of power (ie heat) transmitted to the body (basically "are the microwaves cooking your?"). "Cooking" is a fairly well-understood process, and tissue's ability to dissipate heat can be fairly easily modeled to ensure exposure stays within a safe range. But several of the concerns this meta-analysis points to have a dose-response curve is not so simple or clearly understood, meaning the effects could well occur, even within the usage patterns deemed "safe" on a SAR basis (their language is actually stronger, claiming these "should be considered [...] established effects of Wi-Fi")
All that being said, I don't see this as a definitive answer that our current exposure levels of RF radiation are necessarily harmful, but I have definitely wondered whether our (grand)children's generation will look back at images of us staring at our screens the way we look at images of our parents' generation frolicking in clouds of DDT[3] (I've also wondered this a more often about spray-on sunscreen ads[4], but that's a whole other rant)
----
[1]: Most industry recommendations make the laughable assumption that the phone is not even in contact with the body. Manufacturers basically threw a shit-fit when Berkeley started trying to inform people that most "normal", against-the-body usage was likely outside of what FCC exposure guidelines test for: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/04/berkeleys-cellph...
From both the blog post and the website, it's not clear to me what this buys me over plain Docker (or possibly Docker + Compose). Is this a Compose competitor?
You're absolutely right. That's why Lessig's proposed Citizen Equality Act has multi-member districts with ranked choice voting (effectively ending gerrymandering) as the second major component: https://lessig2016.us/the-plan/
That sounds great. Is he friends with someone who holds office and can make it happen? Say, Warren?
However it goes, I hope we continue to raise awareness and rally support for these reforms. That simple image that shows how gerrymandering works is a real eye opener, for example. And all politicians are guilty for being complicit in that behavior, unless I'm misinformed and there's some legitimate reason for redrawing district lines.
I saw that same presentation at the same event, but came away with a very different impression: the container management they showed was implemented completely outside of docker itself, with no patches to the docker codebase needed. Also, IIRC it actually did use significant code from etcd for coordination.
It had no etcd in it and the POC was implemented as part of the Docker API/CLI, as best I recall. There were significant questions in the discussion about etcd not being there.
There is an extensive comparison of the two processes in [1]. Specifically:
> the Bankruptcy Code provides trustees the authority to avoid, that is, claw-back or reverse, certain transfers (subject to certain limitations52) made by debtors
> the FDIC as conservator or receiver may not avoid (i.e., reverse or claw-back) any property transfer pursuant to a qualified financial contract unless the transfer was performed with the "actual intent to hinder, delay, or defraud."
[1]: https://www.everycrsreport.com/reports/R40530.html