Amusingly enough failing to pay utilities results in some of the most lenient reactions possible; partially because many localities make it illegal to remove electricity/gas service during "extreme weather months" (because old people freezing to death because they didn't pay a bill is really bad publicity for the utility and the government) and partially because they know they'll get theirs eventually.
They will cut you off when the time comes, but it can sometimes be surprisingly long. And they will put a lien against the property, too.
Having been in this situation myself, no they did not give a lenient time. I got a letter stating that they would shut off my electricity and gas. I had a mere couple of days to sort it out.
In my case it was their fault. I configured automatic payments and they migrated their online system and subsequently dropped my data for payments. Still, they were ruthless about it.
What I've usually seen is they threaten to shut you off with very strong wording, and then continue to threaten you for 3-6 months before they bother to send someone out.
My experience with LG&E and Time Warner in Kentucky circa 2008 was getting a shutoff notice dated the day after the payment due date with 14 days to comply. They did in-fact shut the power off at the state date.
This was a common occurrence that people referred to as 'brown billing' because the shutoff notice had a brown header instead of the green header on your regular utility bill.
That's a pretty shitty response to an actual problem.
Companies don't need to prove the safety of things like this.
Look at bpa free. Most people don't even know that bpa free plastic tends to be just as bad, or potentially worse than bpa. The press doesn't give a shit I guess. Society went through its giant bpa panic and now it's tired of dealing with this so let's just ignore it and move onto the next thing. Ignorance is bliss.
You're okay with companies not being responsible, but you want the press to help you out here? I feel the opposite. Companies should be responsible for poisoning us, and the press has zero to do with it.
I don’t think that the problem some posters are alluding to is the kind where we should be placing blame.
The problem is:
- Humans invent something useful and cool.
- Humans discover that the cool and useful thing is toxic as fuck, but only after years go by. It takes years for the awareness of the toxicity to become widespread enough for everyone to concur it’s a problem. Often, we only find out about the toxicity as a result of the cool chemical becoming hella widespread.
- Humans invent alternatives that are different enough to obviously not have the same exact problem.
But: what toxic nonsense or buttcancer risks will we discover about the alternatives? No way to know immediately since it takes years to find out. And it’s only when the alternatives become widespread that we can even do the science to figure out what’s up. And by the time they become widespread, some folks got buttcancer.
That’s the problem: just because there’s an alternative that is different from the thing we found out to be toxic doesn’t meant that the alternative isn’t toxic. And we find out it’s toxic because people get hurt.
It’s not that the press is bad… it’s just a fundamental problem in science and engineering. You need scale to discover the really bad issues.
- Humans who discovered the toxicity lie, bribe, bully, and cheat to stop anyone else from finding out. The solution is delayed by decades and deaths go through the roof.
But we have seen that movie many times, haven’t we? It’s a given that if someone builds a business on a thing and that thing turns out to cause buttcancer, they gonna cover that shit up.
Sometimes covering it up is easy if you just rely on scientific ground truths, like “the dose is the poison”. Even water is a poison if you chug too much of it, so just the discovery that something is poisonous at some dose is almost like tautological. I wouldn’t be surprised if part of the “cover up” was based on that kind of science.
Basically, if there’s utility to something, then there’s money to be made, careers to be made, legacies at stake, etc - and that will bias folks towards covering shit up.
I bet you the folks involved in the cover up were good people who just failed to check their biases.
> Humans discover that the cool and useful thing is toxic as fuck, but only after years go by. It takes years for the awareness of the toxicity to become widespread enough for everyone to concur it’s a problem.
There's no reason for there to be years between discovery and action. It doesn't matter how quickly the discovery ripples through lay society. Once it's known that something is harming and/or killing people, it should be stopped.
What if the alternatives are the kind of thing that could possibly be worse but we don’t have enough experience with them yet to know that they are worse?
Often the known bad thing is better than the thing you don’t know to be bad yet.
Greed is always part of it. It’s a part of everything.
Thats why I don’t usually use greed as an explanation for stuff. Of course greed is part of the system and sometimes it causes bad things to happen. Sometimes it also causes good things to happen. So, if you want to prevent the bad, it’s useful to look for some explanation that isn’t just “greed”.
Case in point: new refrigerants with lower global-warming-potential were adopted after the hue-and-cry about CFCs. Many of the new refrigerants are now also source of concern due to PFAS. The CFC refrigerants themselves were introduced as superior and safer alternatives to things like ammonia and chloromethane.
Genuinely curious, would any money be extracted from the personal accounts of any executive employee that made these decisions, current or past, from any of these thousands of lawsuits?
Unless the decision-making folks have their personal wealth destroyed, they really haven’t anything to lose. I would expect the worst-case scenario is that their stock portfolios will need to be adjusted, by tax-loss harvesting their losses in 3m stocks as an opportunity to divest and rebalance their portfolios.
Considering Purdue Pharma, the Sackler family has so far had to pay out $10.5 billion (estimates of their net worth including those settlements have it dropping $8b during this time period) and despite trying quite hard have not managed to gain legal immunity or protection regarding civil and criminal liability. That means they'll very likely be hit with more lawsuits going forward and possibly even criminal charges.
Looking at it, I think thats pretty good and hope the possibility for future lawsuits means they continue to pay, but knowing that case is an unusual outlier and that none of the other people involved like the CEO or other executives have had any consequences makes it feel a little underwhelming.
I'm glad government is going after bad companies more and I hope they continue, but it does seem like our legal system is just not equipped to correctly hold people responsible in these cases.
The point isn't to undo the past, it is to make it clear to other companies that if they lie about safety they will face an existential threat too.
Who are you people who feel compelled to defend mega corporations that screw people over? What is your psychology? What do you value in life? My goodness.
> The point isn't to undo the past, it is to make it clear to other companies that if they lie about safety they will face an existential threat too.
DuPont, while removed from the threat of this lawsuit, is guilty on plenty of counts of the same behavior with other chemicals.
I believe I've read articles about GE and Monsanto also knowing the health risks to their own employees and doing nothing about it. Let alone the dumping into public waterways.
$143 billion is hopefully the judgement which is levied, and hopefully the first of many.
There are millions of people all over the earth that genuinely believe "might makes right", or "greed is good", or "capitalism inherently results in meritocratic and technocratic allocation of resources so nothing that happens under capitalism can possibly be bad".
That's not even the least liberal worldviews widely held. Love thy neighbor and the golden rule and accountability are not universal
I would say that billions of people believe that "might makes right".
Its been seen across the centuries and countries alike. Colonialism, MegaCorps, Hague Invasion Act and countless examples that prove that morals matter very less in the long run.
or mabye we should be more honest and consider that maybe this is a way for the USA government to fill its coffers back up?
(rapping on another comment saying that there's a chance this is a way for the USA government to sell the 'manufacture capacity' that 3M is to other "greener" owners)
now that I type this out, I realize that this is perfectly consistent with the behavior of empires. the realization that the alleged 'pax romana' (stability and 'peace' for the roman empire) was built on stealing from 'barbaric' tribes and selling stuff to more 'civilized' owners in Rome.
As long as the laws and their enforcement are just, a theoretical government profit motive doesn't seem like a bad thing.
But it's hard to see how the particular people who brought this case to bear would be motivated by the small slice of the increase in federal funding that would redound to them. And it's not consistent with most of the government's behavior -- it doesn't spend as many resources extracting judgments from big corporations as would be likely if its profit motive loomed large.
no, you gotta be much more deep in your reasoning this "high" up
philosophically, at this height, the principle of "justice" is to not so simple... what does it even mean "to be just"? may as well say "be good" but the point is that the issue is good for whom?
the concept is "Empire"... USA government is the empire? aside question: can there ever exist multiple "empires"? monotheistic~ally speaking?
uff... My English prose is answering its own questions... I am no longer deeply disturbed by this phenomenon... but it's not something scientifically real so it still shakes me.
Philosophers seem to delight in the idea that the common good is hard to define. I'm an economist. I don't see much wiggle room. The wiggle room that exists is:
(1) How much do you care about whom? In particular, do you care equally about everyone, or are you a jerk?
(2) How do you weight the relative value of things like money, health, longevity, entertainment?
(3) At what rate does the marginal utility of such things diminish?
Okay maybe that's a lot of wiggle room. Still, under any reasonable set of weights, making millions of people sick is not worth the money 3M made.
It is imperative to control material incentives for all entities, both individuals and organizations. Entities will pursue incentives; money is no exception. Therefore, if we have designed a government so that it profits from protecting citizens from the ravages of corporate greed... that still counts as a good system.
If the government were somehow able to capture the entire market cap of 3M (without any execution slippage, which is obviously an unrealistic assumption), it would be enough to run the federal government for a little over 3 days...
Have the on prem team start deploying some assets that can utilized by the cloud team via a familiar interface like terraform. (metal as a service, kubevirt, Vsphere, nebula, whatever)
Start small, pick one service at a time (compute this quarter, postgres next quarter, secrets management the next) and use the emerging platform to strangle out paid services
Cloud team gets to stay cloudy, on prem team still gets to farm servers
Take a look at the Medium article [1] and it will be clear to you that this is not the same.
Each complete GPU sharing approach must have:
- A mechanism to facilitate sharing (security, isolation, avoiding OOM errors).
- A K8s integration.
Most approaches (like the one you mentioned above) lack a mechanism and simply work around the 1-1 GPU allocation on Kubernetes by advertizing more devices per physical GPU.
Those are not viable solutions.
Please take a look at Paragraph 5 ("The real challenge of GPU virtualization on K8s") onwards as well as the repo notes.
> Office landlords applaud these decisions. They see the return-to-office push by new bosses as a crucial step toward reversing the slide in rent prices, occupancy levels and property values.
This sounds like a hilarious ye-olde prank of pulling your jacket over your head and stumling around trying to scare people but getting bored and wandering off when they didn't react lmao
Could be, maybe even probable. And maybe they figured it out too, but decided to stick to their story of the headless man because, well that's more interesting innit?
And one more thing, this was in the days when capital punishment was still in effect, but with a growing opposition from the humanitarian, enlightened liberal bourgeoisie. And a story about how a decapitated criminal is haunting arbitrary pedestrians does fit that agenda. All subconsciously construed of course.
Definitely neat and a huge flex but I think if you want to actually do multi-tenant kubernetes in kubernetes you should be using kubevirt or metal3 to bootstrap a VM and get a real kernel in there to isolate the cluster from its neighbors.
It's real, kubevirt is a kubenetes wrapper for QEMU which allows you to use kubernetes the manage the lifcycle of virtual machines the same way you manage a pod.
Metal3 is just a wrapper for Ironic from open-stack.
The two work together to re-image bare metal machines and attach them to clusters as nodes which can then be sliced up into smaller virtaul machine nodes to sell to your end user which they can then use to run docker, kubernets or whatever else they want.
Doing this allows you to have full kernel level isolation on a per-tenant basis which is not possible just using normal containers.
It also allows you to pin workloads to specific CPU cores for latency sensitive tasks as well as pass pci express devices through to individual VMs on the host and other fun things
It's really only useful if your problem is 'i have one really big computer but I want to have lots of small computers instead' but that's pretty much every data center so shrug
ClusterAPI (CAPI) enters the equation in that CAPI requires Virtual Machines or Bare Metal machines as inputs which it then uses to create a kubenrtes cluster. Thus, kubernetes in kubernetes with kernel level isolation on a per-tenant basis
https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-ryzen-9-7950x3d-cpu...