Idk how Florida handles it but several states citations issued by red light cameras and those issued by officers are handled entirely differently for the exact reason you mention. Camera citations are entirely civil, you don't get points against your license. If a cop issues the ticket it does become a misdemeanor moving violation.
Even if a zip code contains multiple cities, each ZIP has one "preferred" locality name and you can default to that. Any of the locality names within a zip code is deliverable for all addresses in that zip code.
As has been pointed out in many other comments implicitly and explicitly, the purpose of a set of address fields in an HTML form is not always to come up with a USPS delivery address.
It is supposed to be if the amounts are above $250,000. I have no problem with the first $250k being risk free, that is a policy that is well published and that we all "agree" on. Making arbitrary policy decisions that in some cases depositors should be made whole when risky behavior (such as depositing above the insurance limit) bites them is problematic. Stick to the policy or change the policy don't make one off exceptions because that sets weird expectations.
Businesses can use deposit management services to spread cash among many banks. Bonus points they also are less impacted by the poor business practices of one bank.
Individuals can do this too with investment brokers or wealth management providers.
Alternatively we could just made FDIC coverage unlimited, but then that creates poor risk taking incentives, which is the whole point of not setting the expectation of the a bailout by making exceptions.
The privacy issue has two facets, when I show ID to get in to a club or buy alcohol, the entire interaction is transient, the merchant isn't keeping that information and the issuer of the credential doesn't know that happened (i.e. the government).
Just allowing a service provider to receive a third party attestation that you "allowed" still allows the third party to track what you are doing even if the provider can't. That's still unacceptable from a privacy standpoint, I don't want the government, or agents thereof, knowing all the places I've had to show ID.
> Just allowing a service provider to receive a third party attestation that you "allowed" still allows the third party to track what you are doing even if the provider can't. That's still unacceptable from a privacy standpoint, I don't want the government, or agents thereof, knowing all the places I've had to show ID.
Isn't this solvable by allowing you to be the middle man? A service asks you to prove your age, you ask the government for a digital token that proves your age (and the only thing the government knows is that you have asked for a token) and you then deliver that to the service and they only know the government has certified that you are above a certain age.
The service gets a binary answer to their question. The government only knows you have asked for a token. Wouldn't a setup like that solve the issue you're talking about?
Right, I mean the Roman Republic declined and gave way to Roman Empire for a long time before Rome finally waned. That doesn't feel like it would be a good time for the rest of the world if the United States gave way to the United Empire for next 500 years.
> the Roman Republic declined and gave way to Roman Empire for a long time before Rome finally waned
The Roman Republic was a rising power for centuries. It became the eminent Mediterranean power in 146 BCE and annexed Gaul under Caesar, right as it was collapsing. The Roman Empire then lasted for centuries more.
> doesn't feel like it would be a good time for the rest of the world if the United States gave way to the United Empire for next 500 years
Even if 'possibly preface' is interpreted to mean CNAME RRSets should appear first there is still a broken reliance by some resolvers on the order of CNAME RRsets if there is more than one CNAME in the chain. This expectation of ordering is not promised by the relevant RFCs.
> It's called a firewall. You want a firewall. IPv6 also has a firewall. NAT is not a firewall. NAT is usually configured as part of your firewall, but is not a firewall.
Expanding on this. NAT as deployed in most soho/residential settings requires a stateful firewall to track connections + port mapping logic.A stateful firewall is also used for IPv6 edge security and using the same basic posture (out allow, in established/related only) except the only difference is it isn't also doing an address mapping. Nobody is out there saying folks should run a wide open IPv6 edge, and as far as I'm aware no one is shipping IPv6 ready consumer routers that do that (but I'm prepared to be proven wrong in the responses).
It must be, but any given article is likely to not be the average of the training material, and thus has a different expectedness of such a construction.
Just because an imprinter was used doesn't mean the transaction was necessarily "offline". Depending on merchant's policy, the cashier would call their processor, give them some transaction details and receive an auth code for the transaction which would be written on the imprinted ticket, thus authorizing the transaction at the POS just the same way it's done today (except with humans and phones, instead of an electronic handshake).
Given that GP was the one doing the imprinting, I believe they'd have remembered having done a phone call to a processor or card network on a sailboat :)
I would argue, the issue is that they had exclusive control over the customers bank accounts. I have no problem with fintech that integrates with existing accounts over the top.
The issue is with fintechs that are not really banks, so they keep your money in a "program bank" where you are not the direct customer. You can't go to the program bank and say Fintech XYZ went belly up and I want my money, because you are not the banks direct customer (even though in some cases your name is legally on the account for FDIC insurance reasons).
Open banking tech is way more about the former than the latter.
