haneefmubarak

You get up to the amounts insured by the FDIC, plus whatever is recoverable from the residual assets of the bank and anything else the FDIC decides to award.

I imagine the general problem is still that you're trying to bind a party without a live human who is plausibly authorized to bind them making a reasonably active decision to do so. IANAL, but AIUI "doing XYZ normal thing means you accept my contract" is already on shaky grounds, whereas never actually having the other party affirmatively agree (esp to a contract of adhesion) makes it super unlikely any non-kangaroo court would do anything besides throw your case out.

looks like someone at GCP saw this comment lol :(

https://github.com/GoogleCloudPlatform/gcping/pull/209

https://github.com/GoogleCloudPlatform/gcping/commit/91c3f8a...

Any names or recs on the ones that can do both? Can they do both simultaneously?

There's double trigger RSUs and so on that allow you to have reasonable tax treatment, due to the theoretical threat of loss if liquidity isn't available. I worked at a company that had this at least while I was there.

In theory they provide market liquidity such that for anyone who REALLY wants to go, at any time prior to and potentially even during the event, there remain some options available for purchase; as opposed to basically spinning the lottery on whether you get to go or not, especially for oversubscribed events.

Wyoming?

I think the wet cloth is meant to increase friction between the surfaces

> relying on node.js

When did people start hating node and what do they have against it?

Notionally, opening new banks and/or buying an existing one that lacks current customers is feasible. Presumably once you do that, you could easily plug into FedWire/FedACH/FedNow, which would allow you to process electronic payments on behalf of whomever you choose to bank, as long as you comply with all the KYC/AML and other finance regs. You might not be able to process visa and mastercard, but virtually any of your customers' customers presumably still have financial accounts that are enabled on Fed rails, which will not be as likely to discriminate. Requiring end-customers to initiate payment (push) as opposed to doing pull, would also reduce transaction reversal risk.

I don't really the ultimate purpose of the position taken by either side here, but it does seem to me that there's a path by which both can coexist, even if difficult.

I think GP's point is that you should always seek to apply the law correctly, hopefully setting precedent for its correct application for everyone in the future.

I mean, certainly - if you store both GPS time and derived coordinates from the same sampling, then you can always later interpret it as needed - whether relative to legal or geographical boundaries etc as you might want to interpret in the future.

AIUI the font vendor has a list of customers, each of whom are required to provide an exact list of the domains they will host it on and the domains they will display it on. So the crawlers, upon identifying a matching font, simply have to check that both the displaying and hosting domains match.

Ah, I'm thoroughly familiar with the idea of multiple share classes (although I must commend your excellent explanation and examples here) - I was actually particularly interested what their six choices were to cover the bases as a lowest common denominator etc. No worries at all if you can't say though, I get that.

I'm super curious - what are the six classes and what's the reasoning behind them?

I mean, for a mere Benjamin, a disregarded LLC will solve that for you.

Wait how are there two answers to this? Is shaft length not a well specified term?

I imagine that the blocking is semi-voluntary by the local ISPs, not at a transit or peering level.

Anyhow, I flicked through the tables for Starlink's Spain IP address blocks and they directly peer with Cloudflare, so short of Starlink agreeing to perform similar blocking itself or worse yet de peering with Cloudflare, I'd expect availability through them.

Sure, we could alloy and/or plate it. You have a source on Ag cheaper than Al you'd like to disclose to the class?

Bro let him at the 401 and higher hahaha!

Operational costs (outside of repairing cuts) round to zero in comparison to the capital costs of laying the initial cable. There are OLD cables that are still active, despite relatively low bandwidth, because going and disconnecting everything on either end (even though the cable would remain there) is considered an additional unnecessary cost.

Eh the actual MCP repos seem to just be MIT licensed; AFAIK every AI provider has something similar for their core services as they do.

(not the parent)

I think that it's manifestly unreasonable to preemptively knock out communications in a large civilian area during peacetime for essentially any reasons; in that same vein, it's absurd to lay blame at the feet of a communications enabler who provides a means for individuals to escape authoritarian suppression of communications.

The only parties responsible for the violence you are implying would be the individuals actualizing the violence, the individuals originating falsities, and the governments who fail to actively maintain peace. The collective failures of all three to restrain their actions amidst uncertain rumors should not condemn the vast majority of peaceable humans from communicating with each other.

I can't answer to legality since IANAL and systems vary anyways, but on a moral basis, yes, it is absolutely nonetheless unreasonable until SpaceX / Starlink actually commit an actionable offense of their own or otherwise demonstrate the intent to do so. It's outstandingly unreasonable and offensive to seize assets of such an entity without charging that specific entity with an offense; especially so when your basis is literally "I want to compel an unrelated venture with common beneficial ownership to unilaterally censor my political opponents worldwide".

AFAICT, Starlink complies with local regulations in the countries it operates in, including blocking access to specific IP prefixes and/or declining to default resolve DNS entries for specific domains.

Because it's fundamentally unreasonable to hold one company responsible for the actions of another on the basis of a common shareholder and executive? The rule of law (or at least the generally consistent appearance of it) is far preferable to the open rule of man in wantonly levelling attacks against everyone and everything associated with someone that a government official dislikes.

Think of it less like moving transistors around and more like moving small groups of atoms around (also, you can get single transistor cells for analog and power designs). The processes required to place the rough groups of atoms in roughly specific places involves extreme amounts of energy relative to the size of what you are working with, which is supplied in a combination of chemical, radiation, and thermal forms. As a result, predicting what additional effects attempting to form specific micro-shapes might have is nontrivial. They extensively simulate and then carefully test all of their approved cells on an ongoing basis. Deviating from this could cause unknown issues, including damage, but doing the necessary work to prequalify your custom cells would be prohibitively expensive for most applications.

NB: this is obviously a simplified explanation.

Would you accept "issue" sponsorship to prioritize work you were going to do anyways - for instance, improving performance for a specific usecase etc?

dang, could this merit a black bar in remembrance and honor?

IO OR L4$ triangle tiles, main chip hexagons

Presumably there's a reasonable compromise whereby they provide a public license only valid in areas where such safety mechanisms are legally mandated.