skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
>they may be closing some marginal banks like Signature ahead of true insolvency/illiquidity

That seems unjust and probably illegal. What makes you think Signature isn’t actually insolvent?
From the PR:

"From an economical and ecological perspective the current "Non-commercial bespoke" model license is sub-optimal and should be changed to a truly liberal open-source license like for example Apache 2.0.

In the current state Meta published the whole replication recipe open-source (GPL v3) but asks other entities to spend a lot of energy (potentially releasing massive amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere) to replicate and release a truly open-source version of LLaMA. Given the fact that LLaMA model weights are currently already available for download at many different places this is from an ecological perspective a preposterous management decision and in my personal opinion not well aligned with the overall ecological ambitions of Meta.

If you say "open" (as in the LLaMA paper) and you want to get the bonus credibility that comes with it .. please do it fully and not half-hearted as done currently."
> Probably the only feature those don't come with that I'd like is quake-style dropdown

I think that should be a window-manager feature anyway. Not sure about other platforms, but at least on desktop linux there are options to put any app into something like a quake dropdown.
You’re being bailed out too. You just don’t understand how.

Signature Bank failed and they didn’t tell anyone. A half dozen more would be dead by noon on Monday. Good luck to rest of the financial system, and good luck to the rest of the economy.
Not sure how "taxing depositors at other banks to pay for uninsured deposits" is "reasonable operation of the FDIC".

(And yes, it's taxing the depositors. Because even if it's "officially" a fee to the other banks, it will be trickled down to their customers through lower interest rates and higher fees rather than absorbed.)

If this was necessary to recover insured deposits, that would be reasonable. But instead, the people who made poor decisions aren't going to lose anything, because the extra money is coming out of the pockets of everybody else with money in banks.
Waist-to-height ratio is surprisingly good: your waist should not be more than half your height. Simple to measure too, since you only need a piece of string.
Assuming a new project will have the same flaws as previous Electron projects may be prejudicial. It is not reflexive hatred.
> but the fact that predicting the next words based on past models does such a good job of masquerading as human thinking indicates that much of human thinking isn't much more than that.

I'm not sure I agree with that logic. What it proves is that we as humans are bad at recognizing that text generation aren't thinking like we are... that doesn't necessarily mean thinking isn't much more than what it is doing though, it just means we are fooled. Given that nothing like this has existed before and our entire lives up until now have trained us to think something that looks like it is trying to communicate with us in this way is actually a human being I'd kind of expect us to be fooled.
The part that annoys me the most is the idea that all the depositors are mom and pop small businesses or early stage startups.

I’ve heard it said that Circle and USDC have an amazing business model: create a coin, call it a dollar, and deposit real dollars in the bank for interest while customers hold the coin. You don’t even have to offer a percent for the deposit like a normal bank. You can then make a couple percent on billions.

With this bailout the US Government just backstopped the business model with no haircut for a total lack of risk management. But sure, punish all banks (and thus customers / taxpayers) since the costs will be spread to others. Protecting us from systemic risks always seems to create more systemic risk. I’m sure were done though, they are putting protections in place this time.
You’ll just be the depositor four times, once per account. It’s per account at the end.
Startups are risky enough as is without having to create and manage 50 different banks with 250k in each. Those mass layoffs were the result of poor decisions and execution by the companies, and they should face the consequences.

We want startups to focus on innovation, and where they store (not invest) their cash should ideally be trivial
They didn't offer interest on their deposits.
> I don't think I've ever met another dev who likes PowerShell

I have. But they have never used bash, zsh, Fish, or NuShell.
Cubicles are already a thing, my suggestion just allows you to close the door when you need to focus. I personally don't need sunlight though, or any kind of view, maybe other people are different. That's one of the great things about the remote work boom, if you want to have a work environment full of natural sunlight, you can just work from home!
I don't think it is an issue of moderation. The bad comments aren't rule breaking ... they're just bad.
To your point, it's always the consumers / taxpayers that pay. Fine a company? That ends up in the price? "Tax" a "service provider" (e.g., banks) and that will ultimately be paid by the consumer.

And so on.

The Fed (and others) are going to do what they're going to do. My only wish is they stop with the euphemisms and the insulting of our collective intelligence.
The point was that they won't have a job soon.

To be fair maybe some activities may still be sold to third parties - I have no idea.
https://archive.is/7PO33
Bits, Please
Right. You do stupid reckless stuff that causes a loss? Fine, your insurance premiums go up. Same as with homes and cars.

The only outcome I'd like to see better are bonus clawbacks for the "removed" senior management.
Yeah, there was a lot of balls to Sam's post, "many of the relevant people in government don't understand the magnitude of this"? Like the FDIC? I think they understand plenty. That's very specifically why they don't communicate with the bank before they take it over, that's why as many people have seen and been impressed with, they come in with almost surgical precision and take things over and work (literally) around the clock, realizing every hour, day counts, and get this stuff sorted.

No Sam, it was people like you who underplayed the magnitude of this, and are now panicking, and looking for a bailout, and are entirely unable to justify why of the several hundred or more banks FDIC has closed (though one of the larger ones), SVB should be special, beyond "well, it's MY money".
Too well-connected to fail then?
so silvergate assets exceeded/matched its deposits? I know it was a pretty niche bank just curious as I thought it was in a way worse position.
I have a feeling a lot of these people are Bitcoin maximalist. They want depositors to suffer so that they feel vindicated for their faith in Bitcoin.
But it is a loss to taxpayers. Anybody with money in an unaffected bank will end up footing the bill.
This is similar to how my shell works. It still just passes bytes around but additionally passes information about how those bytes could be interpreted. A schema if you will. So it works as cleanly with POSIX / GNU / et al tools as it does with fancy JSON, YAML, CSV and other document formats.

It basically sits somewhere between Powershell and Bash: typed pipelines like Powershell but without sacrificing familiarity with all the CLI commands you already use day in and day out.

https://github.com/lmorg/murex

As an aside, I’m about to drop a massive update in the next few days that will make the shell even more intuitive to use.
Everyone will now act as if all deposits are insured, because the authorities demonstrated that it's true. This in turn will make any other decision in the future even harder, it's kinda self fulfilling prophecy.

Seriously, you'd have to be stupid now to buy deposit insurance.
> FDIC insurance is essentially unlimited, as long as you can threaten wider disruption to the economy.

I think you misunderstand. Unlike bailout, FDIC insurance means that

1. Shareholders owners are wiped out,

2. Senior management is removed.

3. Unsecured debtholders *will not be protected*. They are made whole only when it's possible using banks assets.
What kind of specs do I need?
I also don't think most internet-adjacent jobs don't even involve toxic, intrusive advertising.

Maybe this is wildly presumptuous but it feels like most of the people complaining about "commercialization" seem to hate the toxic cycle of intrusive ads and algorithm-optimized content that is supported by those ads.

Certainly, that's what the folks quoted in the linked article are railing against.

Do the people railing against "commercialization" of the internet really hate the fact that you can like, order dog food or schedule a trip to the dentist online? Or do they just hate the toxic ad crap?
The important part here is that SVBs assets are basically guaranteed to pay out, you just have to wait it out. It’s fairly likely that there are basically no costs (excepting costs to service the insured 250k in the first place, so no marginal costs)
“After receiving a recommendation from the boards of the FDIC and the Federal Reserve, and consulting with the president, Secretary Yellen approved actions enabling the FDIC to complete its resolution of Silicon Valley Bank, Santa Clara, Calif., in a manner that fully protects all depositors. Depositors will have access to all of their money starting Monday, March 13. No losses associated with the resolution of Silicon Valley Bank will be borne by the taxpayer.”
I think you would find that looking closer would reveal a world of difference.
They went on a press tour because a generation of start ups was about to be eradicated wiping out trillions of value over the next 10 years, possibly destroying the most valuable ecosystem ever and putting American society on a path to competitive disadvantage long term. If you think this is hyperbole considering US growth without startups just as AI is about to transform 75% of economic activity globally.
Higher FDIC insurance rates, which get passed on to banking customers.
The point of risk management isn't that you never have any losses, it's that your losses won't be large enough to produce a crisis (e.g. where you can't honor withdrawal requests). If the other party is also managing their risk well, they may take a loss, but they won't be "wiped out".
There are ways, fine the bank owners, claw back the bonuses, etc... Maybe even criminal law.

But the depositor has no fault. A depositor shouldn't have to do diligence, just like it shouldn't test the the food it's buying for toxicity.
No, so long as the average maturity is not too long.

The long-term bonds would have paid back enough money for SVB to pay back every depositor if there had not been a run that forced them to pay them all back at the same time. Knowing that everyone can get 12 months of runway will do much to allay fears and so reduce risk of further runs.
Exactly. Having to split your money among multiple banks should be a mature/medium-sized company problem, not a mom-and-pop or 30 person startup.
Wow, that's incredible. I can't imagine signing up with a bank that demanded exclusivity. I know some banks give better rates if you have a broader relationship, but I've never heard of one that insisted on exclusivity across the board.
Have you tried programming in terminals on Windows? I promise you it is horrifying.

And my Emacs is pretty stock with native comp.
This is not the moral hazard risk he was referring to. The bank still has no incentive to load up on overly risky investments because in the case of an FDIC takeover, they (the investors and executives) will still loose everything. The moral hazard here is for depositors. They have an incentive to put their money in the bank with the highest possible yield no matter what the bank's investment portfolio looks like, since their deposits are now seemingly guaranteed by the banking system as whole.

To be fair, I'm not sure if this is necessarily a bad thing for certainly types of very low yield accounts (checking accounts with no interest, etc). But there certainly is an element of moral hazard at play.
This is surprisingly soothing, great concept for background white noise!
YC asked for exactly what just happened. (Depositors be made whole.) They did not ask for anything beyond what regulators ultimately deemed reasonable.
The comment you're replying to makes perfect sense in exactly the context you describe, so your reply seems quite bizarre. Maybe you didn't read it properly? (See how unhelpful that tone is?)

For the analogy about not explicitly hearing the baseline, but the music still being affected by it: maybe you interpreted it just a little too directly? The analogue to removing the baseline is not the total removal all three of those punctuation marks. Instead, it's the removal of the distinction between them. I think it was pretty clear (and apt).
Agreed, not a bailout as this is the purpose of the insurance scheme.

If someone gave me 10-to-1 odds that actually there will be no shortfall associated with this action I would happily take that bet. Shareholders will be wiped out but SVB's assets will cover all of the deposits, the regulator is just being extra-conservative.
Stories about new blimps come out a couple of times a year. Some are cargo lifters but most are passenger focused. Pardon the pun, but most have trouble getting off the ground.
All the arguments for LLMs actually having "understanding" are of the form "I want to believe" or "you can't prove they're not."

Chomsky's point that we have no basis for judging LLMs as cognition machines because we don't know what cognition is, is correct. Building these machines may produce useful tools, but it also doesn't advance studies of cognition, either.

We do know one characteristic of cognition as it occurs in nature. There seem to be natural affinities to distinguish the real and true from the hallucination. Perhaps that comes from persistence and physicality. How do we give that to ChatGPT?
Signature Bank going under is proof that contagion was indeed happening, contra what some people (e.g. Paul Krugman) were saying.

This decisive action by the government (both ensuring depositors will be made whole immediately, and the Federal Reserve giving out extra liquidity) should ensure that the contagion doesn't spread any further though, an banks like First Republic will avoid going under as well.
Relevant:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qCGofLIzX6g
Yeah I don't really think the name of the project is very appropriate.
Which banks were offering elevated interest rates in the last decade?! I must have missed that memo...
>> and senior management are going to get wiped out and fired.

Yeah, let's punish the management like we did in 2008...

"SVB executive was Lehman Brothers CFO prior to 2008 collapse"

https://m.economictimes.com/news/international/business/svb-...
Having to wait for the bonds to mature is arguably a haircut. Otherwise you can for example, justify a 10% haircut by saying that you can take that 10%, buy some 5 year treasuries with it, and get back your money once those bonds mature.
If you have any money in any other bank, you're paying for this.
Yeah, shit is gonna hit the fan over this in terms of domestic turmoil. All those people who took PPP loans and Silicon Valley VCs getting bailed out who railed against student debt relief, it's just mind boggling. Just wait until student borrowers start getting squeezed and the Supreme Court nixes the debt relief. This is not good for long term political stability.
This is part of why the bank appealed to funders and startups. These positions are just marketing to better reach their target customer base, as far as I see them.
This is probably why they had to make this announcement. Regional banks were going to be a bloodbath tomorrow morning.
Putting all your capital in one too big to fail bank is the least costly option and the optimum strategy.

Until the US lets the largest bank fail this will continue to be the case.
Are you saying that “no losses will be borne by the taxpayer” is worded specifically to avoid saying anything about costs to said taxpayers? /s
The government isn't saving SVB, their owners, execs and shareholders are being wiped out.
css might feel insane but not much than splatting ansi escape codes around bytes.
Translation: the Fed is done raising interest rates. Period. Forget all of the tough talk by the team over the last few months. We raise until we break something. Now that we broke it, that's that.

As for that inflation problem... It will require another solution...
Who would've thought post-hand-wringing-over-poor-300k-salary-tech-workers realizing their disposability that we would have another event reminding HN just how different the rules are for capital owners than the rest of us.

Why is that tech workers, many of whom easily have earned over a million dollars in salary over the past few years can't be told to "live within their means"?

Why is it that the same VCs that rallied against student debt relief think their poorly run bank should be bailed out?

I know why, this thread is chalk full of it. "We were smart, we were playing the game with the advantage we were told made us untouchable, we can't fathom gasp 'negative consequences' whatever those are".

I'm sick of it and thankful to see people seeing through this a bit more than usual. Downvoting isnt going to change a damn thing, click your hearts out and enjoy the dissonance. See ya in the next too-big-to-fail-as-a-result-of-unchecked-corporate-greed thread. lmao
And you get one account's worth of deposit insurance for them.
Suggestion: volume mixer for the two tracks. That said, awesome mashup. Similar to myNoise B29 noise generator with unintelligible comms.
Many banks offer ways to get around the $250k limit, sometimes it's as simple as to open an account in another version of the same bank chartered in a different state
Do you think software engineers who write bugs should also be publicly humiliated? Should your bonus be clawed back if you tech lead a project that ends up failing because of bugs?
Interesting prompt. Wasn't going to say anything at all until "wherever you stand, we want to see what you're doing with what you have".

Some guitar ditties are on my personal site, they're not polished or anything but were fun to make. It's just the audio as I'm not experienced with recording but learning by doing.

https://www.lifeonthereg.com/guitar.html
This is not a dupe. But, it does show the failure of a URL to organize discussion. This URL ends with b; the URL for 35127063 ends with a. a appears to discuss the Bank Term Funding Program. b appears to discuss the receivership status of Silicon Valley and Signature Bank.
The pay is then collected from depositors by banks.
You probably can't hope for better under the US system. Maybe other banks will push hard to not allow more SVBs in the future after seeing this.

Suppose I'm a Utah bank that is mostly lending money to diverse local businesses and home owners, and mostly taking deposits from other businesses, some local and some not, and would-be future home owners. Last week I probably didn't care that SVB wasn't required to be as risk-averse as I was, if they failed what do I care?

Today, seeing this news, I care a great deal, and I don't want to see other banks allowed to take risks I wouldn't have been permitted unless they're paying a lot more than I am for the privilege, because when they fail - and they will fail - I don't want to pay for that.
The Fed and FDIC are going to bailout depositors by guaranteeing that whichever bank takes them over won't lose money on the deal. That is, the assets might be worth 90% of the liabilities, and the insured accounts cover another 5%. So the FDIC and/or fed will cover the last 5% of the money owed to depositors. In part, by doing so quickly, they can have Monday morning a full guarantee by (huge bank) be the next news story.

The stockholders are not being bailed out. They may get something back if the assets happen to exceed the liabilities. But I would need amazing odds of make that bet. I fully expect depositors to get made 100% whole, with something like 95% coming from existing assets/covered FDIC accounts and the remaining 5% coming from other entities.
Because the owners of SVB lost everything, it's only the customers that are being made whole.
Maybe they are. I would assume that the government has some discretion over when to intervene, since financial status is dynamic, but I don’t know.
Why isn't it. Pragmatically it's pretty silly to insure the first 250k and then expect people to go through the trouble of spreading their cash over a multitude of accounts. Punishing people for not having accounted for black swan events in their risk assessment is also not scalable. Do we want people to do useful stuff, or to spend their time digging the rule book to ensure they've accounted for every eventuality?

Also it's not like once you have 250k in the bank, you're suddenly a finance wizz, omniscient of all the tricks and tips with regard to treasury management. Even as you get into the low millions of net worth, it's not like you suddenly became a HBS graduate. A lot of regular hard working people end up hitting those limits and wouldn't reasonably be expected to learn about treasury-foo. A lot of young or small businesses are in the same lot. Being somewhat wealthy doesn't turn you into a fine financier. And even if you think those folks should hire advisors, it's not like they can afford to hire the right ones with this relatively small amount of wealth.

I think resentment of having gone through the pain of spreading your cash, in vein, isn't a good reason to screw up hundreds of thousands of salaried employees, and a bunch of regional banks.
>keep America at the leading edge of the industry

That was never the plan.

Turns out you can enjoy a pretty excessive lifestyle on the cost of exploiting your population. If you can keep them at bay physically (overtime) and financially (living wage) you might as well keep doing this forever.
What are they gonna do? Protest during the 8 free hours they got a day? Run for any significant political position with the 2 dollars left from their living wage?

Of course children from minorities could have a future but why care about that when you're well off?

What if approaching neo-feudalism was the goal, not a side effect?
Oh, plausible has goals now ? Time to revisit it to push it again in my org :).
Bank market caps had fallen something like 100 billion last week. Compared to that the cost of any special assessment will be miniscule.
As it was explained to me, the Fed increasing interest rates impacted the value of the bonds held by SVB. As that value contracted SVBs was eventually in trouble.
Mine does not offer better investment/loan rates, but they do definitely offer better services and lower fees.

My wife banks with one of the big banks--pretty much everything she tries to do is a hassle. Often that involves long hold times only to be told she needs to travel into town to a branch to get something done or resolved. That's, more than once, been the point where they just outright refuse to actually help her. She pays $20/mo+ for the privilege.

I never wait on hold. Everything I've needed to do I can do online or via phone/email. When my wife's bank steadfastly refused to allow her to send me a wire transfer, my CU was the one that was willing to discuss alternatives and help us figure out how to get the money moved. When I had bad credit but had repaired my financial situation, my CU was the one that was willing to extend me credit based on the personal assessment of a real human. I've paid them $0 in fees in the last decade or so.

My wife's been telling me to get a "real bank account" for years because my CU has been halfway across the country in one direction or another most of the time we've been together and has no local branches. She still can't seem to grasp that it's not a problem when your bank is actually staffed by actual people empowered to make stuff happen. Her "real" bank on the other hand...