That's not what that column is supposed to mean afaict. The way I read it is it's showing that if the website requires hundreds of different parallel backend service calls to serve the page load, what's the probability a page load hits the p99 instrumentation latency?
We have a similar chart at my job to illustrate the point that high p99 latency on a backend service doesn't mean only 1% of end-user page loads are affected.
Ah, I see. So, for example, if one page request would result in 190 different backend requests to fulfill, then the possibility that at least one of those subrequests exceeds the 99th percentile would be 85.2%. That makes a lot more sense.
Sure, but note that anyone who does not work for government or big or well funded businesses is not going to get severance when they are laid off or terminated. Which is probably half of the US or maybe even more. All the franchised restaurants/hotels, most retail, smaller construction contractors, etc.
It is mostly a benefit for those earning more than median incomes.
I don't want my own office. If I wanted to work in a room by myself, I would work from home. The whole reason I go to the office at a job that lets me choose is because I find it easier to be productive when sitting with my teammates.
You do not have the right to force your personal religious views onto other people though. Tolerance does not mean everyone else has to allow you to dictate how they live their lives.
I don't think it's fair to complain that you're not interested in reading about the state of venture capitalism on an article titled "The State of Private Markets". The article delivered exactly what it promised in the title.
Why would banks take more risk with their deposits? The bank executives, shareholders, and bondholders wouldn't be personally affected by the loss of deposits anyway so I'm not sure they would care either way. If deposits aren't guaranteed, they lose their investment, and if they are, they still lose their investment.
> Unless the insurance is paid for by the banks themselves
It is though. The FDIC insurance fund is funded by premiums paid by banks.
> The FDIC insurance fund is funded by premiums paid by banks.
those premiums were calculated based on the $250k limit.
So the premiums are too low, it must be argued, if the actual limit is higher than $250k. Which means someone took a loss here paying out the insurance on deposits.
Who this "someone" is right now, i am unable to tell. The gov't says it's not the taxpayer. But i have a sneaky feeling that it will eventually be the tax payer.
By law, if the FDIC takes losses to the insurance fund to pay out on uninsured deposits, they have to charge an extra premium to the member banks. So it's still the banks paying for it.
It's more accurate to say that "bank depositors" are taking the hit, in the form of increased FDIC fees. Which end up reflected in lower interest rates for bank savings accounts. If you only keep a negligible money in bank accounts, then you aren't paying for this.
If you are keeping a lot of money in the bank, then yes, you are paying for this. But you are also gaining, in a sense, from the stability of the banking system.
This is also assuming that the sale of SVB's assets doesn't end up covering the full cost, and that the remaining cost is large enough to result in a meaningfully sized special assessment on FDIC member banks. My understanding is that neither of these outcomes are a given or even likelier than not.
Maps has become buggier and buggier over time. These days I can't figure out how to use the UI and my navigation to work has become completely wrong (it used to be correct for years) out of nowhere.
We have a similar chart at my job to illustrate the point that high p99 latency on a backend service doesn't mean only 1% of end-user page loads are affected.