All the functional checks are done in the producer and consumer client code - the only thing any Confluent hosted tier does is check to see whether the schema-encoded Kafka message contains a schema ID that matches one for that topic, it does absolutely no data validation otherwise.

So, if you have a bad client, you can publish data to a topic which does not validate against any schema, but the topic will accept it so long as the schema ID presented is valid. The entire thing is based on trust.

You can do much better validation than their implementation, essentially, and lose nothing.

So this isn't at all what you asked for, but I'm going to throw it out there anyway: Ubiquiti. You'll pay more and they're all PoE rather than wireless, but if you spend the money and run the wires (hey, you have to run a wire for power anyway, might as well use it for data, too) you won't regret the results.

Socialism as a black market approach, interesting.

So you get to pay taxes AND fund other peoples basic needs voluntarily through a non-governmental path. Which means that only those people that are giving a fuck about others are actually contributing.

If lawmakers were serious and believed in the provisions they must have had a good idea in advance what reaction to expect from industry so why have they folded so easily?

I sometimes get the distinct impression lawmakers don't even care and just dangle the threat of promulgating good reasonable provisions just to rake in corrupt political contributions.

Actually he tried and partly failed because it was only partly legal.

That might not stop him from trying, and unless Congress or the courts rein him in, it won't stop him from doing it. As I pointed out above, in this case it's unclear that anyone would have standing to sue (not taxpayers; it wouldn't be tax money -- maybe nVidia or China, but they like the deal), so stopping him would probably require Congress to act. And what are the odds that the Republican Congress would grow a spine?

"Not be possible" is too strong.

It's clearly possible unless Congress or the courts prevent it, even though it is clearly illegal. But Trump is doing lots of things that are clearly illegal, which is why the courts keep issuing injunctions to stop him (and then SCOTUS keeps staying the injunctions to let him go ahead and do it anyway, at least for a while). In a sane world, the fact that an action is illegal would be a stronger constraint because the president would have to be concerned that Congress would impeach and convict him, and he would have to be concerned about potential criminal liability. In the world that exists, the GOP leadership in Congress refuses to do their job to rein in the executive, and SCOTUS has declared the president above the law so there are few practical limitations on his power.

So far, the only thing that seems to really make Trump back off is when the stock market crashes.

Nevertheless, a slush fund of several billion dollars per year that the president is truly able to spend with complete discretion would be a significant additional increase in power because it's not clear that anyone would have standing to sue, so courts could not intervene regardless of constitutionality. Congress would be able to intervene, of course, but, again, the GOP-led Congress has almost completely abdicated. I had to add "almost" only because they actually did stand up to him on the Epstein files (sort of; the bill left Pam Bondi with near-total freedom to withhold anything she wants, not legally, but practically).

No, Trump is more secretive than most other presidents. You're confusing "unfiltered and disorganized" with "transparent". I do have to grant that he's incredibly transparent about his corruption. Well, maybe. He has been transparently corrupt in lots of ways, but it still seems likely that there's more corruption which he's keeping hidden.

Excel is dumpster with a hole rusted through the bottom leaving a trail of garbage everywhere it goes.

"A programmatic scan of leading genomics journals reveals that approximately one-fifth of papers with supplementary Excel gene lists contain erroneous gene name conversions."

https://link.springer.com/arti...

Whenever I get data in excel I cringe. The data will almost always be mangled requiring me to go back to the source and ask them to change their workflow.

Just before Thanksgiving I received a spreadsheet full of serial numbers. The serial numbers with letters in them were fine. The serial numbers that were all numeric all ended with a 0 due to irreversible loss of precision.

Decades ago I loved seeing all the shit people would come up with in excel, access and oracle forms. It let people who do not get paid to do this shit get useful value. Everyone else... professionals who should know better than to use excel is an another story entirely.

Where did you read that? If it's true it would be momentous. A totally discretionary fund of $2-6B per year (based on nVidia's projections of selling $2-5B per quarter to China) would give the president enormous unchecked power.

I've spend some time searching and haven't found anything to substantiate this claim. I'm not saying you're wrong, but I'd like to see where you got the idea from.

But you repeat yourself.

DAMMIT! All I needed was blockchain!

Best summary of the AI craze I've seen so far.

I guess the line starts here. I'm looking for guitar and amp sponsors. Coincidentally, they should have a fairly significant supply of hookers and blow available just for their usual endorsers, and I'd be happy with just the scraps. I'm old, and my tolerance isn't real high for either.

But...

Yeah, right. Human nature alone says you got new shiny for free, you'll be enamored with new shiny, regardless of how often new shiny arrives in your cave.

Not gone, but the herd will thin, and probably more along the lines of a century or so. I think in the end there will be small pockets of humans left, those who are now considered extremely wealthy, though that wealth won't mean much when we get the right set of circumstances to wipe out the electronics we've woven so tightly into society that even a small-scale Carrington event in galactic terms would mean disaster. We rush headlong toward the dumbest possible outcomes because it makes profit for those wealthy folks, at the expense of everyone and every thing else. Eventually, that mentality will lead to a population decimation. Nature can be fucked with only so long before it comes crashing back in on those who believe themselves superior to her. The universe doesn't much care how many game tokens you've accumulated in this life. It'll smack you just the same.

That said, there are bound to be a few bunkers around that will keep small populations of the wealthy and their families alive for a few more generations. Whether they're smart enough to trade mating partners in time to prevent genetic stagnation from ending the species will be an experiment we won't know the results of until the time comes. And most of us will be long gone by then.