Follow Deal Instructions Click Here

The brooch is back! Quiet statements of luxury are slowly beginning to infiltrate the fashion scene, elevating everything from sharply tailored outfits to flowing maxi slip dresses with an added flourish of character and elegance. I’m beginning to wonder whether the brooches grand return has emerged, in part, as a response to the craze of print dominance that defined the 2025 fashion landscape. From a fashion climate largely driven by bold, vibrant looks to one of increasingly understated decadence, we are witnessing a shift towards minimalist maximalism. Instead of pairing together garments that are individually loud, designers are channelling expression more precisely by concentrating visual impact through more intentional details. Autumn/Winter 26 collections saw an influx of brooches, notably by the likes of Chanel, Ralph Lauren, Tory Burch and Khaite. Historically, the brooch dates to the Bronze Age, but as we all know, fashion trends always circle back and reinvent themselves in contemporary society. Regardless of their current resurgence as a trend on the catwalk, I strongly feel that brooches have the potential to transcend ‘trend status’ and reclaim their place as timeless emblems of elegance and refinement. Awards shows have been brimming with brooches this year, cementing the accessory’s status as a defining talking point in the 2026 fashion climate. Their resurgence has been particularly prominent in menswear, with the 2026 Golden Globes seeing the likes of Patrick Schwarzenegger, Connor Storrie, Orlando Bloom, Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson, among countless others, incorporating eye-catching brooches into their red carpet outfits. The trend continued at the 2026 Oscars, where celebrities including Adrien Brody and Michael B. Jordan were photographed sporting the accessory, both looking particularly fabulous, might I add. Emma D’Arcy and Coleman Domingo were among those embracing brooches at the 2026 Emmys, while celebrities including A$AP Rocky and Jon Batiste offered their own take on the brooch accessory at the 2026 Met Gala. The sheer diversity of looks punctuated by brooches throughout the year speaks to the accessory’s versatility. No longer confined to a specific gender or garment, the brooch is asserting itself confidently as a gender-fluid adornment, equally popular in both menswear and womenswear. <p>The post The Return of the Brooch. first appeared on Her Campus.</p>

A biological child excluded from a parent’s will does not qualify as an heir under Texas law merely because of that familial relationship. But exclusion from a will does not necessarily foreclose the child’s rights as an interested person in the estate. In Estate of Thorn, the Twelfth Court of Appeals addressed both issues, holding that a daughter qualified as neither an heir nor a devisee under her mother’s will, and that her unresolved claim to property under her grandmother’s will could ultimately establish – though it had not yetdone so – a separate interest entitling her to compel an estate inventory as an interested person. In Estate of Judy Kay Thorn, No. 12-26-00026-CV, 2026 WL 3082954 (Tex. App.—Tyler Oct. 14, 2026) (mem. op.), Judy Kay Thorn left her entire estate to one daughter, Kristi Huskey, whom she also named independent executor. Her other daughter, Kerri Hass, disputed whether Judy could leave certain real property and mineral interests exclusively to Huskey because, she contended, Judy’s mother’s will (Kristy’s and Kerri’s grandmother) gave Judy only a life estate, with the remainder passing equally to Kristy and Kerri. Separate litigation regarding the grandmother’s will remained pending in Wood County. Meanwhile, the Smith County probate court admitted Judy’s will and appointed Kristy independent executor. After Kristi filed an affidavit in lieu of inventory, Kerri requested a complete, itemized accounting based on her claimed remainder interest. The probate court declined to compel production, leaving the Twelfth Court to determine whether Kerri had established a sufficient interest in Judy’s estate to demand its inventory. A biological child may not be an heir, but may still have standing as an interested person Section 309.056(c) of the Texas Estates Code entitles an “interested person” to receive an estate inventory upon written request, even when the independent executor has filed an affidavit in lieu of inventory. If the executor refuses, the interested person may seek an order compelling production, which the probate court may grant or deny in its discretion. Kerri’s right to the inventory therefore depended on whether she qualified as an interested person under Texas Estates Code Section 22.018, which includes “an heir, devisee, spouse, creditor, or any other having a property right in or claim against an estate being administered.” Potentially surprising to non-probate practitioners, Thorn explains that a biological child does not qualify as an “heir” merely because of that relationship. Instead, Texas Estates Code Section 22.015 defines an heir as someone entitled to inherit from a decedent “who dies intestate.” As the court explained, “When a decedent dies testate—that is, leaving a will—there is no ‘heir’ within the meaning of the Estates Code definition,” when the will disposes of all estate property. Thorn, 2026 WL 3082954, at *9. Because Judy’s admitted will disposed of her entire estate, Kerri did not qualify as an heir. Nor was she a devisee because the will left her nothing. Id. Kerri nevertheless had another potential basis for establishing her status as an interested person. Section 22.018 also recognizes anyone possessing a property right in or claim against the estate. Kerri therefore relied on her asserted remainder interest under her grandmother’s will, claiming ownership of property that Kristi treated as belonging to Judy’s estate. But the pending Wood County litigation had not yet established that interest. Although the probate court recognized that Kerri might eventually have a claim against Judy’s estate, the Twelfth Court concluded that she had not yet done so. Because Kerri bore the burden of proving her status as an interested person, the court affirmed the refusal to compel the inventory. Id. at *9 (citing In re Davidson, 485 S.W.3d 927, 930 (Tex. App.—Tyler 2016, no pet.)). The court left ownership of the disputed property to the Wood County litigation. In short, although that litigation might eventually establish an interest sufficient to confer standing, the possibility of a favorable outcome in the Wood County litigation could not substitute for actual proof of Kerri’s status as an interested person. Additional procedural reminders for probate practitioners Kerri’s inability to compel the inventory was not her only setback. She also lost opportunities to challenge the probate of Judy’s will, seek abatement, and pursue removal of the executor because she failed to satisfy separate procedural requirements. Those failures offer three additional reminders: Finality of probate orders. Kerri failed to timely appeal the January 2024 order admitting Judy’s will and appointing Kristi as independent executor. Although the estate administration continued, the order finally resolved a discrete phase of the proceeding and prevented Kerri from challenging it absent a timely appeal. As the court explained, a probate order becomes final when it “actually disposes of all parties or issues in a particular phase of the proceedings or clearly and unequivocally states that it does so.” Id. at *5 (quoting Estate of Wheatfall, 729 S.W.3d 788, 792 (Tex. 2026)). Dominant jurisdiction. Kerri argued that the Smith County proceeding should have been abated in favor of the related Wood County litigation, but she failed to preserve that complaint. Merely identifying the other proceeding did not suffice. “The proper method to assert a claim of dominant jurisdiction is through a plea in abatement in the second-filed suit.” Id. at *8 (citing In re Pioneer Energy Services Corp., 696 S.W.3d 743, 748 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2024, no pet.)) Preservation of error. Kerri sought removal of Kristi as executor but failed to obtain an express ruling or object to the court’s failure to rule. She also failed to adequately brief the issue on appeal. As the court reiterated, “the trial court must have either ruled or refused to rule on the request (in which case the complaining party must have objected to the trial court’s refusal to rule).” Id. at *7 (citing TEX. R. APP. P. 33.1). Even assuming an implicit denial, inadequate briefing independently prevented appellate review. Id. at *9–10 This author was authored by David W Reynolds.

My photographic practice exists at the intersection of photography, cinema and set design. I approach each image as a scene in its own right, creating sets, characters and situations that draw as much from cinematic language as from theatrical imagery. Inspired by pop and camp aesthetics, my visual universe plays with appearances, excess, contrasts and social conventions, combining visual references with irony and tongue-in-cheek humour. Through my staged compositions, I explore themes such as desire, masculinity, power, representation and the construction of identity. The male body and queer imagery occupy an important place in this artistic exploration, not as activism, but as a means of artistic expression that questions our relationship with images, social norms, and freedom of representation. Romain Berger: Daddy cool Romain Berger: L’as de coeur After several years marked by exhibitions in France and internationally, as well as various publications, I have gradually noticed a shift in the way my work circulates and reaches its audience. Over the past two years, opportunities to exhibit and be published have become increasingly scarce, while reaching out to galleries and media outlets has grown more difficult. This has coincided with a gradual decline in my social media visibility, eventually leading to the permanent deletion of my Instagram account after eight years of activity and nearly 10,000 followers. Beyond losing a platform for sharing my work, I also lost part of the network, connections and visibility I had spent years building. Romain Berger: Make me famous Romain Berger: À fond de cale I have also experienced firsthand the restrictions that can be placed on certain forms of artistic representation. Earlier this year, an exhibition in France was cancelled just weeks before its opening because some of my photographs were considered too explicit. This experience led me to question the place currently given to images dealing with the body, sensuality and desire. While openness and diversity are widely discussed, certain forms of representation still seem to provoke suspicion, and sometimes outright rejection, particularly when they fall outside what is considered acceptable. These challenges are also part of a profoundly changing artistic landscape. The constant proliferation of images, the saturation of digital platforms, and the rise of artificial intelligence are transforming not only how work is shared, but also our relationship with creativity and the value of artistic work. For independent artists like me, developing and presenting a body of work is no longer enough. We must also find ways to exist in an environment where attention has become a scarce resource and visibility increasingly depends on mechanisms beyond our control. Despite these challenges, I have no intention of abandoning my visual universe or the subjects that shape it. I continue to create with the same desire to experiment, build distinctive images and explore alternative forms of representation. I believe it is now more important than ever to preserve spaces where artists can present work that may sometimes challenge, provoke questions, or simply fall outside established expectations. Artistic freedom should not depend on an artist’s ability to conform to dominant norms, nor on the ever-changing rules of platforms that now determine such a significant part of their visibility. Portfolio: www.thevelvetstudio.fr Instagram: @romainb_artist The post Photographer Romain Berger Explains the Ways in Which His Work is Being Increasingly Censored appeared first on QX Magazine.

At WalmartBuganda via Walmart Click Here

It was a week full of small and humble things. I chipped away at the list. The mountain that is the sewing room. The present cupboard. The garden. I have tried to do a few extra things each day with the overall goal of being somewhat organised for Christmas and ending the year in some sort of order!Mum made hats for the last two pram blankets from the left over yarn. I love how they look as sets! There is one to go then that is it for this year.I made two tea fruit loaves and they were really delicious. One of these was for Mum.My cook up was a big batch of chicken schnitzels and veggies. I had one lot that were gluten free for myself and lemons to use up so these were delicious (and shared) meals.Early last week we had an inch of rain and I had hoped this would bring up my reluctant pumpkin seeds.Well, this worked! They started to spring up and just kept coming! My pumpkin beds are a big old bath tub and a long trough, maybe twelve feet long? They are all deep and hold a lot of soil.The boys helped me and filled buckets full of sheep manure for me to add as I water. In the orchard pears had formed... hundreds of them! We put the nets over them. I have found once the fruit is set the nets also help if there is a storm. They seem to hold the branches together in the wind as well as protect from the cockatoos.One of my nets is getting a bit worn out and has a few holes. So my job is to do what I have done before to address holes which is to use safety pins to hold them together. Truly if there is one hole the birds easily figure that out. Also if they can go under that is no good... the tree truly has to be sealed off! The tree I was most worried about was the apple. Last year I failed to notice in time that it had aphids. It was really bad and not one apple formed. So for a year it has been cut back, sprayed with soapy water, sprayed with pyrethrum... Even now it has some aphids... but I am about 80% winning and apples have developed. I walk around it a couple of times a week and re spray any aphid patches. But look at those babies! 💗The boys helped me pull up the spent celery. It has reached the cut many times and getting woody stage.The chooks were very happy. Mum gave me Nana's butter dish. Nana made the butter so this was the dish Mum grew up with. I will be using it from when I make my own next batch.Our littlest farmer is Ike. He would like to be keeping up with the big kids. In all of the things that have happened this year his birth is the best. It is hard to fathom all that has happened in 2026. I needed help with my lawn irrigation... this system is part of my fire safety plan. That was sorted out so I am very happy. On a preparedness note I added a CB radio to my ute (truck.) Communication has been my weakest link. So this was something I could do.Today it rained. All day! All my seedlings look so perky and happy. They really look like smiling faces shooting up as we speak. So that is perfect. I have a big raised bed where the celery was. I can now plant something else. I have an idea... something I haven't tried before! So that was my week. Chipping away. Nothing grand. Just keeping going. I am going to make a sneaky plan for some Christmas atmosphere and surprises for some people who deserve something special. The thing is having a sneaky plan is really fun! This is a sure fire way of bringing some Christmas joy to ourselves and others. One thing I am thinking of is making some advent wreaths. But let's think of someone completely unsuspecting we can do something for. If we plan now we can do that!xxx

The Ninth Circuit is poised to rethink its use of a subjective “intrinsic” test to determine substantial similarity in copyright cases. On September 29, 2026, the Ninth Circuit, sitting en banc, heard argument in the appeal of photographer Jeff Sedlik, who lost at trial over claims that tattoo artist Kat Von D infringed his 1989 copyrighted photograph of Miles Davis when she copied the image for a tattoo design. The case has drawn wide attention because the Ninth Circuit’s framework is a relative outlier among the circuits. Photo credit: Jeff Sedlik. In January 2024, a jury found that the tattoo, a sketch, and certain social media posts were not substantially similar to Sedlik’s photograph and were therefore not infringing. The jury also found that some of Von D’s social media posts displaying the tattoo were fair use. Sedlik argued that the Ninth Circuit’s two-part framework for evaluating substantial similarity allowed the jury to reject his infringement claim, even though there was evidence that Von D traced his photograph and used the resulting stencil to tattoo a client’s arm. Primarily at issue was the Ninth Circuit’s “intrinsic” test for copyright infringement, which asks whether a lay, reasonable observer would find the works substantially similar in their “total concept and feel.” To find substantial similarity in the Ninth Circuit, a copyright holder must satisfy both the intrinsic test and the “extrinsic” test, which objectively compares similarities in the works’ protectable expression, filtering out unprotectable elements. The extrinsic test may be determined as a matter of law where appropriate, while the subjective intrinsic test is typically, but not always, left to the purview of the jury. Expert testimony is generally allowed on the extrinsic test but not on the intrinsic test, because the intrinsic test looks to the audience’s response to the works as a whole. The framework dates to Sid & Marty Krofft Television Productions, Inc. v. McDonald’s Corp., 562 F.2d 1157 (9th Cir. 1977), and took its current objective/subjective form in Shaw v. Lindheim, 919 F.2d 1353 (9th Cir. 1990). In January 2026, a three-judge panel affirmed Von D’s trial win. Because the intrinsic test is “uniquely suited for determination by the trier of fact,” the panel was “reluctant to reverse a jury’s application of the intrinsic test” and declined to disturb the jury’s verdict. Nonetheless, two judges wrote separately to call for an end to the intrinsic test: Judge Wardlaw noted that the Supreme Court “has never blessed” the test. She wrote that its focus on “total concept and feel” conflicts with the Copyright Act’s command that protection never extends to any “concept” and suggested that the court “consider dispensing with the intrinsic test.” Judge Johnstone noted the test’s drift from its origins as “a factual test for determining substantial similarity of an idea’s overall expression” into “a subjective test based on the jury’s own impression.” He argued that the test leads to “unpredictable and asymmetrical results” and precludes summary judgment for “almost all copyright plaintiffs.” He also warned that only defendants can correct erroneous verdicts, because the Circuit “ha[s] never reversed a jury’s no-infringement verdict under the test.” Calling the tattoo “100% exactly the same,” he concluded that “a test that produces such a result cannot be right.” After granting rehearing in June, the “elephant in the room” for the en banc court was what happens when a jury finds that two works are not substantially similar when those works actually do look alike. During the 2025 panel hearing, Judge Wardlaw observed, “I think what we’re all struggling with here is that, we look at it, we say, ‘This is the same photograph,’ yet through all these machinations, it ended with the jury saying that it’s not substantially similar.” At the en banc argument, Sedlik picked up on that tension, arguing that “no matter what the jury does, it can’t be reviewed,” even though “everybody knows something went really wrong.” He urged the court to replace the subjective intrinsic inquiry with an objective comparison anchored in protectable expression. Under his approach, the court would first identify the protectable elements, and jurors would be told which elements are unprotectable on their own and then directed to compare the protectable expression as a whole. “Objective means verifiable, identifiable features compared side-by-side,” he said. Von D argued in response that a controversial verdict does not justify abandoning a longstanding test. Von D warned that an objective, element-by-element comparison runs the risk of “missing the forest for the trees,” overlooking how the works appear in their entirety. The parties and amici have identified several possible paths forward: Maintain the test: Copyright law professors supporting Von D contend that the jury properly relied on the “holistic impression of an ordinary non-expert observer” and argue that Sedlik’s position “turn[s] the test for infringement into one merely for copying in fact by converting ‘total concept and feel’ into a ‘heads I win, tails you lose’ rule favoring plaintiffs.” Abolish the test: Sedlik, building on the panel concurrences, asks the court to discard the intrinsic test in favor of an objective comparison of protectable expression that judges can review on appeal and, in clear cases, resolve on summary judgment. Revise the test: Photography trade associations urge “definition, not abolition” of the intrinsic test, which they contend has “erroneously developed, in some hands, into a standardless inquiry untethered from protectable expression.” The amici propose confining the test to protectable expression, which they argue would allow cases to be “properly reviewed by the Courts, and in exceptional cases may be resolved as a matter of law.” The Ninth Circuit’s framework is not the only way to approach substantial similarity, however, and the parties and amici drew sharp contrasts among the circuits’ tests. Courts and commentators generally sort the circuits into two families: the two-step “extrinsic-intrinsic” approach of the Ninth, Fourth, and Eighth Circuits, and the more holistic “ordinary observer” test applied in the Second, Third, Fifth, Seventh, and D.C. Circuits. Still, every circuit filters out unprotectable material at some point and includes a holistic comparison of some kind. What sets the Ninth Circuit apart is how rigidly it treats the holistic step as a separate, independently dispositive test committed to the jury. What It Means for Practitioners Regardless of the Ninth Circuit’s ultimate decision, each possible path forward carries consequences for litigants and copyright owners. Several stand out. Abolishing or curtailing the intrinsic test would likely make summary judgment more available to plaintiffs in clear-copying cases, which today almost always must go to trial, and would give plaintiffs something they have never had on this prong: meaningful appellate review of a jury’s no-infringement finding. But the change would cut both ways. If the holistic comparison becomes something judges can decide, defendants may find it easier to win early dismissals where the only similarities lie in unprotectable elements. Whatever the en banc court decides, the case shows what can happen with general verdicts. The jury answered a single “substantially similar” question, so no one can say with certainty whether it rejected Sedlik’s claim under the extrinsic test, the intrinsic test, or both. Litigants can instead consider requesting special interrogatories that separate the extrinsic analysis, the holistic comparison, and fair use, and should press for work-specific instructions that identify the unprotectable elements rather than relying on generic language. Experts may also play a larger role in determining whether infringement has occurred. Experts have long helped to bridge the gap between a lay juror’s initial reaction when seeing an allegedly infringing work and the rigorous analysis that is required when assessing infringement. For example, jurors and judges evaluating whether a piece of music is infringing may be guided by testimony from musicologists to understand the technical elements of the work. Experts also help jurors understand when apparent similarities between two works reflect conventions common to a genre rather than copying, but under current Ninth Circuit law, that testimony is confined to the extrinsic test. If the en banc court eliminates or curtails the intrinsic test, expert testimony on what is protectable, and on how much protected expression was taken, may carry more weight, and Daubert challenges to those experts will matter correspondingly more. In short, the en banc court’s decision will likely reshape how copyright cases are tried in the Ninth Circuit, from summary judgment and jury instructions to expert strategy and appellate review.

We are given the following packing of the flat torus with 25 circles below : Our goal is to compute the minimal polynomial of the corresponding circle diameter $l$. Using classical trigonometric identities we obtain a polynomial system of equations which consists of 13 equations, 12 trigonometric variables (the sines and cosines of edges in the contact graph) + the diameter variable $l$. All approximate values of the solution are know up to 15 decimal places. The details of the system of equations and numerical values are available here. We tried to use a sage implementation of the Groebner Algorithm to eliminate trigonometric variables in order to obtain the characteristic polynomial for the diameter $l$. It has been running for days without producing any anwser. the implementation of our sage script is also available here. For anyone interested I also added the optimal solution for a packing with 21 circles here. Also available our sage script to compute the corresponding minimal polynomial here. After 17 minutes of computations it returns a polynomial of degree 136. Are there other tools we could use in order to perform this task? I am not really familiar with optimizing Groebner algorithm so any good idea would be very much appreciated. Thanks!

Consumer Reports (CR), Aspen Digital, and the Global Cyber Alliance recently released the fifth annual Consumer Cyber Readiness Report for Cybersecurity Awareness Month. The report explores how American consumers perceive and manage digital security and offers new insights into the rise of digital scams and fraud. A CR survey of 4,682 U.S. adults conducted in March and April 2026 found that 9 in 10 American consumers had encountered at least one digital scam or attempted cyberattack. Of those who were victims, 17% percent lost money to scams: 10% permanently and 7% temporarily, with money recovered in some cases. A separate CR survey of 2,082 U.S. adults in May 2026 found a sharp decline in confidence in personal data privacy. Only 32% were at least somewhat confident that information such as their Social Security number, health history, and financial details remained private, compared with 48% in a nationally representative survey of 2,333 U.S. adults in May 2025. Those who were “not confident at all” nearly doubled, from 16% to 29%. CR noted that AI is making cyber fraud faster, cheaper, and more personalized. The survey showed that one in five consumers who had encountered a scam attempt (20%) reported that the most recent scam attempt they encountered was customized using their personal details. Phone calls were the most common technique used, with a third of those surveyed saying their most recent scam attempt began with a phone call and was personalized to them. Vishing continues to be a real threat to both individuals and businesses. (insert previous blog articles about vishing here). When 9 out of 10 Americans have been the target of cyber fraud, a third are related to a social engineering attack, and AI is used to accelerate and personalize the attacks, it is imperative that individuals are aware of the threat and protect themselves against it. Here are some solid tips to protect yourself from a targeted cyber-attack through the use of vishing techniques: https://blog.defend-id.com/2026/05/27/vishing-attacks/

Domain For Sale: $29 CopyWrit.com Domain Value Estimates: Godaddy Appraisals =$1,932 Dynadot Value =$21,502 Atom Estimate =$4,800 Price: $29 Available on Dynadot Marketplace Registrar = Dynadot Expiry Date: 2027/9/19 Keyword: CopyWrit Avg.Monthly Google searches = 100K - 1M

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) is announcing an opportunity for the public to comment on CMS' intention to collect information from the public. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), federal agencies are required to publish notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information (including each proposed extension or reinstatement of an existing collection of information) and to allow 60 days for public comment on the proposed action. Interested persons are invited to send comments regarding our burden estimates or any other aspect of this collection of information, including the necessity and utility of the proposed information collection for the proper performance of the agency's functions, the accuracy of the estimated burden, ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected, and the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology to minimize the information collection burden.

The recently enacted 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act contains important provisions affecting community and regional banks that have received considerably less attention than the legislation’s broader housing-related initiatives. Among the most significant are provisions expanding the treatment of reciprocal deposits under federal banking law and creating a new framework for certain custodial deposits. These changes could have meaningful implications for banks seeking stable sources of funding and for businesses, municipalities, and other depositors seeking the security of expanded FDIC insurance coverage. In this week’s episode of the Consumer Finance Monitor Podcast being released today, Alan Kaplinsky (founder, former leader for 25 years and now Senior Counsel of the Consumer Financial Services Group) is joined by Rob Blackwell, Chief Content Officer and Head of External Affairs and host of the podcast show, Banking with Interest (on which Alan was a recent guest to discuss developments at the CFPB at IntraFi and former Editor-in-Chief of American Banker. Rob brings a particularly valuable perspective to the discussion, having spent nearly two decades covering the banking industry and Washington before moving to IntraFi, where he has played an important role in advocating for the recent legislative changes affecting reciprocal deposits. The discussion begins with an overview of IntraFi’s business and the reciprocal deposit network it pioneered. Rob explains how reciprocal deposits enable customers to obtain FDIC insurance coverage substantially exceeding the ordinary $250,000 insurance limit while maintaining their banking relationship with a single local financial institution. The arrangement also enables community and regional banks to attract and retain substantial deposits that they can use to support lending in their communities. Rob discusses the principal users of reciprocal deposits, including small businesses, municipalities, nonprofits, and wealthy individuals, and explains why these deposits are fundamentally different from traditional brokered deposits. A particularly timely portion of the discussion focuses on the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act and its amendments to the federal treatment of reciprocal deposits. Rob explains the limitations imposed by the 2018 legislation, why the rapid growth in reciprocal deposits following the 2023 failure of Silicon Valley Bank made those limitations increasingly problematic, and how a bipartisan effort led by members of Congress resulted in the Keeping Deposits Local Act, which ultimately became part of the broader housing legislation. Notably, the standalone reciprocal deposit legislation passed the House by an extraordinary 405-0 vote. Rob walks through the new tiered formula for determining how much in reciprocal deposits banks may hold without those deposits being classified as brokered deposits. The conversation also examines the legislation’s separate treatment of custodial deposits, an area where further FDIC rulemaking will be important. The conversation then turns to several other developments with potentially far-reaching implications for the banking industry. First, Alan and Rob examine the proposed CLARITY Act, which would establish a comprehensive federal regulatory framework for cryptocurrency and allocate regulatory responsibilities between the SEC and CFTC. Rob discusses the banking industry’s concerns about stablecoin companies offering economic incentives resembling interest payments despite restrictions in the GENIUS Act. He explains why banks fear that stablecoins could draw deposits away from traditional financial institutions, potentially impairing their ability to make loans, particularly to small businesses. The discussion also addresses the political and ethical issues complicating the legislation, including concerns about the cryptocurrency industry’s influence in Washington and the involvement of the President’s family in cryptocurrency businesses. [The bill did not pass before Congress adjourned for the Midterm Elections. In light of the fact that the Elections have resulted in the Democrats obtaining control of the House and the Senate, the prospects for enactment of the CLARITY Act are unclear.] Second, the discussion explores the growing role of artificial intelligence in banking, including the potentially transformative implications of agentic AI. Rob describes a particularly troubling hypothetical scenario in which AI agents, acting independently on behalf of customers, simultaneously move deposits away from a bank based on information suggesting that the institution is experiencing financial difficulties. Could AI-driven deposit movements trigger a bank run on a scale and at a speed that traditional banking systems have never experienced? The discussion also considers how AI-generated search results could affect the competitive position of community banks by directing prospective customers toward larger institutions, as well as the need for regulatory guardrails and clarity concerning responsibility when AI systems make consequential financial decisions. Finally, Alan and Rob briefly discuss the longer-term implications of quantum computing, including the potential threat it poses to existing data security and encryption systems. This episode offers listeners a particularly informative perspective on the intersection of banking, technology, legislation, and public policy. Rob’s experience as both a leading banking journalist and an industry participant provides a valuable vantage point on the legislative developments and emerging challenges facing financial institutions.

I’m sharing this beautiful merch that is fundraising for No Borders Herbals, an important herbal solidarity project whose funds are currently down to zero! About No Borders Herbals No Borders Herbals is a self-organised, grassroot network of medicine makers, growers,... Read more

On November 4, 2026, the U.S. Department of Labor’s (DOL) Office of Inspector General (OIG) notified Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health David L. Keeling that it was initiating an audit to determine the effectiveness of OSHA’s actions to address workplace violence. The OIG plans to begin work immediately after an entrance conference with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), where the audit’s scope and methodology will be discussed. Quick Hits On November 4, 2026, the DOL OIG announced an audit of the effectiveness of OSHA’s actions to address workplace violence. It is the OIG’s first review of the issue since a September 2001 report found OSHA could do more on guidance, outreach, and recordkeeping. OSHA still has no workplace violence standard and relies on the General Duty Clause, so the audit’s findings could shape future enforcement and rulemaking. Background The OIG’s fiscal year (FY) 2026 audit workplan previewed the audit, noting that 849 of the 5,486 workplace fatalities recorded in 2022 involved intentional injury by another person. The OIG’s 2001 report recommended that OSHA clarify its use of the General Duty Clause for workplace violence, assess its outreach, and track workplace violence data. Twenty-five years later, OSHA’s healthcare and social assistance rulemaking remains a long-term action on the regulatory agenda. OSHA has instead historically cited employers under the General Duty Clause, an approach that has been upheld by courts. What It Could Mean for Employers Although the audit itself does not impose new obligations on employers, its findings could influence OSHA’s future approach to workplace violence prevention. Potential outcomes include: Increased enforcement: OSHA could place greater emphasis on assessing workplace violence hazards during inspections and investigations, particularly in higher-risk industries. Expanded guidance: OSHA may update its workplace violence prevention guidance, including recommendations concerning hazard assessments, employee training, and incident response. Renewed rulemaking efforts: Depending on the audit’s findings, OSHA could face additional pressure to advance a federal workplace violence prevention standard, particularly for healthcare and social assistance employers. For multistate employers, the audit also serves as a reminder that workplace violence prevention obligations vary significantly by jurisdiction. Employers operating in states such as California must continue complying with applicable state-specific requirements, regardless of developments at the federal level. Listen to this post here.

Elpis is an open-source desktop and terminal app for Linux where you run coding agents (GPT, Claude, Gemini). It is built on OpenAI's Codex. This post shows what Elpis does for those agents, through the picture that made it click for me: a mother and her children. I used to call Elpis a "harness". I stopped. A harness is what you strap on a horse. What I want for my agents is closer to what a mother does: she nurtures them. She feeds them, cleans them up, keeps them safe, checks their homework and keeps them accountable. She feeds them when they are hungry A baby gets milk when it needs it, not the whole fridge. An agent's milk is context. Left alone, a coding agent loads the instruction files it finds and keeps the whole conversation until the window fills. You can't see what it was told. In Elpis, the Context Ledger lists each instruction file, chosen file and memory with its token cost. You include or exclude each one before you send the first message. She changes the diaper when it is full A full context window is a full diaper: the agent gets slow, confused and expensive. /compact cleans it up now. /compact N sets a level, and Elpis compacts on its own when the remaining context drops to it. Smart Prune (experimental, off by default) goes further: it shortens a long tool result before it enters the conversation, and keeps the original in a log so you can check what was cut. A fair warning: compaction loses detail. Check important claims against the transcript. She puts them in a playpen Children learn by playing, in a place where they can't get hurt. Elpis keeps Codex's sandbox. In a workflow, each agent owns its own folder, agents/<its name>. In a Git project it works in its own worktree, and a step that changed files outside its folders fails. The tradeoff: outside a Git project, the folders are instructions, not enforced. She stops the siblings fighting over toys Two agents that run side by side may not share a folder. It is Rust's rule for ownership, applied to agents: Rust Elpis workflow A value has one owner Each agent owns its folder Shared borrows only read A check reads the writer's work and writes only its own notes No two mutable borrows at once Two agents working alongside may not share a folder The owner decides what lives The Mother agent decides what reaches your project She checks their homework and keeps them accountable A check follows each agent that writes. It reads the work and passes or fails it. At the end, the Mother agent reviews the combined commit. She must pass it with evidence before Elpis fast-forwards your project. That is where this post's picture comes from: in Elpis, the agent that designs and runs a team is called the Mother agent. She watches over them In the desktop app, the Observability page puts each request, tool call, token and cache hit of a chat on one timeline. In the terminal, the Agent command center shows each helper under its parent chat. She remembers Elpis can resume a chat exactly where it stopped, and you can switch models without losing the thread. Memory saving is opt-in per workspace, and the Context Ledger decides whether a saved memory reaches later requests. What it is not yet Elpis is alpha (v0.5.3), Linux x86_64 only, and in daily use by me. Its release checks show it installs and runs; they do not prove it writes better code. Try it curl -fsSL https://raw.githubusercontent.com/MasihMoafi/Elpis/main/scripts/install.sh | bash Then run elpis-app for the desktop app or elpis for the terminal app. Code: https://github.com/MasihMoafi/Elpis What else does a mother do that an agent app should? Tell me in the comments. The best answer may become the next feature.