skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I was in your spot many times. Ignore those who say you're in the wrong here. I quit all those jobs and did 2 things:

1. Work as a contractor, only with the end customer, on a deal that was "do work, get paid". Nothing else, no teams, no management, no stupid meetings etc.

2. Started my own company, where no idiot who hasn't seen a line of code in his life can tell me how to implement something.

The people you complain about are the worst in the industry. They affect junior talent so much that people fall into depression, anxiety, burnout etc. There's a YT video from a super smart lady based in NY who's managing teams and explains this to great detail, but I can't find it right now unfortunately (thanks for the algorithm update, Google). Anyway, point is: get out and find better work.
Reinsurance literally exists for this purpose. It's what Berkshire Hathaway does, for example.
I think at this point we'll agree to disagree.

I will offer this as a middle ground that I'm not even 100% sure will work since I'm not in front of a TypeScript interpreter.

What about just defining it as object? Would work for object.Keys, but not sure how the function consumers would get along with it.
They were supposedly safe. Misconceptions exist everywhere in business and finance. Silicon Valley's entire modus operandi is about "disrupting" industries that feel their business models are safe.

They were in fact not safe. The bank no longer exists after failing to cough up depositors' cash.
They're just characters. There are characters in terminal fonts introduced decades ago that allow you to draw different shapes, such as

⬤ ⬤ ⬤ ⬤ ⬤ ⬤ ⬤ ⬤ ⬤ ⬤
┍━┯━┯━┯━┯━┑ ┍━┯━┯━┯━┯━┑ ┍━┯━┯━┯━┯━┑ ┍━┯━┯━┯━┯━┑
3 │ ⬤│ │ │ │ 8 │ │ │ │ ⬤│ 3 │ ⬤│ │ │ ⬤1 │ │ │ │ ⬤│
┝━┿━┿━┿━┿━┥ ┝━┿━┿━┿━┿━┥ ┝━┿━┿━┿━┿━┥ ┝━┿━┿━┿━┿━┥
4 │ │ │ │ │ │ 9 │ │ │ │ │ │ 4 │ │ │ │ │ │ 2 │ │ ⬤│ │ │
┝━┿━┿━┿━┿━┥ ┝━┿━┿━┿━┿━┥ ┝━┿━┿━┿━┿━┥ ┝━┿━┿━┿━┿━┥
5 │ │ ⬤│ ⬤│ 10 │ ⬤⬤│ │ │ 5 │ │ ⬤│ ⬤│ 3 ⬤⬤│ │ │ │
┝━┿━┿━┿━┿━┥ ┝━┿━┿━┿━┿━┥ ┝━┿━┿━┿━┿━┥ ┝━┿━┿━┿━┿━┥
6 │ │ │ │ │ │ 11 │ │ │ │ │ │ 6 │ │ │ │ │ │ 4 │ │ │ │ │ │
┕━┷━┷━┷━┷━┙ ┕━┷━┷━┷━┷━┙ ┕━┷━┷━┷━┷━┙ ┕━┷━┷━┷━┷━┙

It doesn't align perfectly here, but on terminal it does.
The question is whether they are passed through to VMs. Even with accelerators, I have been wondering why cloud providers even bother with Intel unless they're getting the processors basically for free.
seems like she decided to do a bailout about 9 hours after this article was posted saying she wouldn't

(https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35127063)

life comes at you fast

is a bailout that other banks pay for via a special fdic assessment not a bailout?
No... if the same depositor + ownership structure owns 4 accounts, the total insurance is $250,000, not $250,000 x 4.
> At the same time, this is yet another example of changing the rules in the middle of the game

Every time the FDIC has stepped in like this they have made all depositors whole. This is not new behavior.
Worst case scenario they’ll probably end up sold to the Fed and held till maturity like all the MBS the Fed bought during the pandemic.
A few companies have done this but calling it the stereotypical playbook is a bit over the top.

Also, there are many startups building stupid junk to capture a piece of the pie but also many startups working on real problems.

This whole comment is a reductive cliche at this point.

Please start a company to work on fixing climate change, food security, aging, etc.
https://theintercept.com/2023/03/11/silicon-valley-bank-used...

Pop quiz: who is Kevin McCarthy?
My understanding is that these places slowly accumulate their own libraries for some semi-automated framework (like svelte for example, though I don’t think this is svelte). This knowledge comes from my working in a media watchdog, and my own analysis of the New York Times’ code so the economist may be different. I also (obviously) don’t have first class access to these things only what we’ve been able to probe using osint tools and analyzing the javascript/html/css.
The only thing I’m saying is that - technically - taxpayers are footing this bill, even if FDIC claims otherwise. Whether or not this backstop should have even happened in the first place is a different issue.
You will lose far far more if the public loses faith in banks. Not wanting depositors to get backstopped is cutting off your nose to spite your face.
This attack also doesn't work if you `exec su lowpriv_user` since there is no parent shell.
But don’t they have assets equal to their deposits? So why the fuck do they need bailing out? Tell the bank runners to get stuffed and wait for the assets to be sold.
Wouldn't mind hearing your story!

But by default, I assume everyone, rich or poor, acts in a selfish manner. They'll help others only when it helps themselves, often by taking an insignificant financial hit for a substantial reputational bonus. Many rich people like the ones I listed try to act like their overall goal is to help others, but their actions seem to always align with furthering their own interests. If Mark Cuban did something that did substantial damage to his own overall value (financially or reputationally) in order to help someone unrelated, I'd be pleasantly surprised to hear it.
Sapphire Rapids was supposed to compete against Milan where it would have had a chance (with massive discount). It was delayed so long that it's now pointless.
The bonds are good to yield on the stated timeframe. You need to hold them to maturity. They bought long term bonds and tried to sell them after newer higher yielding bonds came out. Bad decision. Also lobbying to avoid stress testing below 250B instead of 50B.

They could have kept deposits as cash and watched the value erode like a dumb retail consumer has an option to do. But that’d look bad for bank investors.

So now the Fed and Treasury are responsible for negative yield on bad bets if that account crosses 100B. Cool. I only have about 100B to go before the US government cares about my negative position. 401K takes an L because interest rate rises and the SP500 being a stock buyback circus. That’s on me I guess.

Anyone saying well it’s not using taxpayer dollars. Whatever, it is using our feds time. This whole thing is now J Powell and Yellen focusing on a cottage industry serving billionaire interests instead of using their time and agency to work for that dumb aforementioned retail consumer undergoing inflation and a pending recession.

In an agency where any intervention sets a precedent this is now telling regional banks to go ahead and yolo your balance sheet. We got you.

I want the startups to get their money through liquidation of the bank at whatever discount that comes to. 80c on the dollar, whatever it isn’t your money anyway it’s VC money. All savings accounts come with 250k FDIC insured. So play by those rules.
The original LLaMA paper has some benchmarks. https://arxiv.org/pdf/2302.13971.pdf
Based on the last time I played with thml colours, probably red
> I remember reading about something called principal agent problem...

A summary of the problem:

The principal–agent problem refers to the conflict in interests and priorities that arises when one person or entity (the "agent") takes actions on behalf of another person or entity (the "principal"). The problem worsens when there is a greater discrepancy of interests and information between the principal and agent, as well as when the principal lacks the means to punish the agent. The deviation from the principal's interest by the agent is called "agency costs".

From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principal%E2%80%93agent_proble...

See also: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/principal-agent-problem...
Now that the bailout is done, I hope these guys stop tweeting for the sake of everyone’s sanity.
The title should be "CBDC is out of alpha, undergoing beta testing". Strap yourselves in, boys and girls.
As a Brit I can't help but notice that on every axis, our country appears to be in decline at the moment. Even before Brexit, things hadn't been going well, as this article shows. It's making me seriously consider moving away.

I want to have hope that as a country we can turn around this societal regression, but I fear it's a deeper problem than just the current government. The class system and an unhealthy nostalgia for when we were more important in the world seem to be holding us back.
I don't think it's nearly clear enough at this point to trust a politically-loaded statement like that, straight from the horse's mouth. There are a lot of ways to obscure this, through inflating the money supply or deferring costs for years or (most insidiously) moving risk around. The money is apparently coming from a special assessment on all other banks in the US; will the customers of those banks see themselves paying more in fees or earning less in interest as a result? Does this drain whatever reserves FDIC has, possibly requiring it to draw funds from the taxpayer in the future when something else bad happens? How does this affect the risk decisions made by other banks, knowing they will be backstopped by the public if, like someone with a bomb strapped to their chest, they promise to take everyone down with them? Apparently SVB was offering loans on very appealing terms to tech companies if they kept deposits at the bank. Companies made the decision to take those terms, accepting the counterparty risk in lieu of paying higher interest on loans from other, more stable banks. Over and over we hear that financial returns are justified because of the risks taken. So is that just a sham, then?
Blaming depositors for a bank run is stupid. The bad investments and the lack of diversity in depositors are squarely the bank's fault. The bank does not deserve charity from its depositors.
I occasionally read this guy's blog, and he seems to enjoy alternative forms of air travel, plus he's more knowledgeable about the physics than I (he was a JPL software guy and is now doing some carbon capture work).

https://caseyhandmer.wordpress.com/2020/05/20/a-quick-note-o...

This is about zeppelins, not blimps, but I think it will be relevant. I'd say the TLDR is that airships are neat, but commercially they don't make any sense, even if you consider much improved materials of today vs their heyday.
Nah they just don't want their taxes to pay for this stuff (tho it seems like they won't, I guess?!)
Tips for Data Storytelling and Visualization
Why We Never Have Enough Time
not for long

a decade from now kids will all be getting named with not-yet-on-google spellings of their names, to help distinguish them from AI bot personas of the same name. idiocracy calls it once again (Upgrayedd)
I don't think oversight comes from shareholders or the CEO, it comes from the customers, right? The desired outcome here is for the companies that banked with SVB to demand more caution from their next bank, meaning they'll pay higher fees; they have no incentive to do that if they don't lose any money in this mess.
> we've never sought any financial advisors

No accounting firm??
Do you know the definition of a government tax?
Were this true it would be terrible, because Turing-completeness necessarily includes non-termination. This would mean that a compiler would crash, or get stuck in an infinite loop.
Did you diversify your banking?
No it wouldn't bring down all of them. They are not all on the same level and they can raise and lower their level. Debris analysis would be done and the fleet would be commanded to move strategically.

Causing a chain reaction is significantly more difficult then people think.
I don't understand why so many people have such a hard time justifying this.

* If the bank collapses then many startups shut down. This is bad, but okay, maybe you think startups are net negative. In addition to that thousands of people will lose jobs — please explain how this is a good thing. Plus there's a potential for ripple effects from people not trusting banks anymore.

* You say it's a bunch of rich people profiting. Who are these rich people you're talking about? Bank management? They went to zero overnight. Shareholders? zero. Who's left? Garry Tan? He has the same incentives as millions of Americans whose retirement savings are parked in VC funds.

I want to say I'm one of those people who's not personally profiting from this, but I acknowledge that's not true — the economy is connected and stable economy is good for everyone and we should celebrate people who push for it.
So, it turns out that the taxpayers are footing the bill to make the depositors whole.

Good day to be an account holder, bad day to be everyone else.

I am sympathetic to the account holders, who are at low fault, but still not happy that the cost gets foisted on the public, who is even less at fault.
The install (npx dalai serve) fails silently for me. With --verbose it says `npm info run node-pty@0.10.1 install { code: 1, signal: null }`. Ubuntu 22.04.
This sounds like it's basically the opposite of a bailout: It's the FDIC stepping in, removing management, likely wiping out shareholders, but otherwise letting the bank operate normally with customers fully protected - instead of letting management continue to run the bank in ways that may lead to losses.
sorry for the extremely dumb question but is it possible to run the 68B model in a 8gb ram computer?
Many of the big banks give effectively 0% interest right now for everyone, so it isn't really that much different, but yeah I agree with your sentiment.
As mentioned in another thread, $250k is a minimum.

The FDIC guarantees $250k which is covered by fees paid by the banks. Above and beyond that they will pay out depositors first by selling the bank’s assets, which they took over on Friday.

In this case, FDIC is saying they will make depositors whole. They’ll do so by covering it with FDIC funds which they’ll recoup by selling assets and charging other banks if there’s a shortfall.
> Yellen has just broadcast that FDIC insurance is essentially unlimited, as long as you can threaten wider disruption to the economy

"If you owe the bank $100 that's your problem. If you owe the bank $100 million, that's the bank's problem." - J. Paul Getty

(Or as I heard it more aptly paraphrased, "if you owe the bank a million dollars, the bank owns you. If you owe the bank a billion dollars, you own the bank.")
Nobody in "the public" is losing faith in banks. FDIC covers everybody up to $250k. If you have more money than that and can't be arsed to split it up into multiple accounts that's on you.
Ah, thanks for the insight. That would make sense, I will try to probe around more to see if it is possible to make them more accessible to other media publications as well.
> 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?

So you want government to provide complete health insurance, after all. we want people to spend their time doing usefull stuff not studying the very complex intersection of all known diseases and medical beurocracy?
well we will see what happens over the next couple weeks. no prediction we make here is going to change it.
How is this for comedy:

CNBC: 2023/03/09 "Wells Fargo says buy Signature bank the last game in crypto-town

JPM: 2023/03/09 "JPMorgan predicts customers will migrate to Signature Bank’s Signet payments network. Cryptocurrency firms can incorporate the Signet network into their platforms using application programming interfaces.

However, Signature also faces pressure to minimize crypto risks and recently announced that it would cut crypto deposits by $10 billion. Coinbase recently switched to Signature for its Prime customers."

Barrons 1/19/23: After Silvergate and Signature Earnings, the Worst Might Be Over for Crypto Banks
You can probably infer who I'm talking about simply by noticing which major VCs were not part of the histrionic crowd.
Kinda... but not really.
Aliases can be redefined in certain situations (such as compiling a LCM configuration into a MOF for use with PowerShell DSC). The only safe way to script is to use the full command names (Verb-Noun).
Unlimited FDIC insurance has been the unofficial rule for some time now. No depositor has lost money since 1933, not even when Lehman went bankrupt.
Happened to me as well.
Apparently, you can just run:

python3.10 convert-pth-to-ggml.py models/7B 1
./quantize ./models/7B/ggml-model-f16.bin ./models/7B/ggml-model-q4_0.bin 2

And then play with:

./main -m ./models/7B/ggml-model-q4_0.bin -t 8 -n 128 -p "..."
One step install after the steps that lead up to it.
> The Federal Reserve has created a new program that provides a backstop to banks based on the par value of their assets, rather than the market value. This is huge because the issue here is that the assets on a bank’s books are baskets of loans (typically mortgages or loans to the US government) that are very safe but have lost market value because interest rates have risen. However, at par (what they'll pay over their lifetimes), they cover all the bank’s deposits.

One of the big "lessons" of the 2008 financial crisis was the need to mark assets to market value, because otherwise, the banks were reticent to admit that their worthless assets were, in fact, worthless. So I find a certain amount of amusement in the government saying 15 years later in effect that mark-to-market is a bad idea and needs to be avoided to prevent financial problems.
You mean... Just like they do now?

The late 80's, early 90's, early Oughts, late Oughts, Pandemic, now...

Hell, If there's been one constant in my life it seems to be financial crises every 5-10 years. All the Fed seems to do is magic in new money to inflate asset bubbles some more.
Weird conclusion in the article. How is $1000 a budget android? Or $500 for a budget phone for that matter?
Because is increases dramatically the demand for FDIC insurance, which raises the fees on everyone.
Destroying money means a lot of people have to become poorer. So isn’t destroying money where it’s safe to do so just another way of saying the politically connected get bailouts while the rest don’t? It seems that this would be an optimal strategy from a cynical political authority I suppose.

Still it makes me wonder if the transmission mechanism for interest rate hikes will work, since the politically connected are where most of the money is already.
I saw kernels of advice that seem relevant to people who tend to struggle with some aspects of social life (like me). Trauma is just a single factor that tends to complicate social life, but is far from the only reason someone might find value in the advice.

You concluded that the article didn't need to be written, which suggests that perhaps the content is just not relevant to you. But that's the value of discussion threads like this - to reflect back what we heard, to read each other's reflections, and to take those into consideration as we contemplate the content and decide how valuable and relevant it is to each of us, individually.

Sometimes perspectives will differ, and within those differences you'll find the entire value of a discussion thread.
Of course the people lobbying for that knew it was a lie to make more money.
> > Governments are supposed to act in the best interest of the governed

Many of the governed see what policymakers and politicians call 'systemic risk' and 'instability' as a not so unwelcome wildcard considering that the wealthy of today are mostly descendants of wealthy land owners from the times of the Crusades.

> > They did their job and did it quickly and effectively

Where are the Fed , D.C. , the FDIC etc. when a gas station goes belly up? Or a small family owned boat builder in Maine? Nowhere to be found. Their fault? Not being systemically important enough. Whatever the fuck that means.
Only if random-app is well-behaved (and if you knew it was you could just use `random-app ./myfile.txt`).

$ echo foo > a.txt
$ <a.txt ( echo bar >/proc/self/fd/0 )
$ cat a.txt
bar
The was a way to get AHEAD of time. The bank regulatory [Liquidity Coverage Ratio] should have never been pushed to $250B in Deposits threshold.

It was at $50B for a reason since 2008. But Trump administration lifted to $250B in 2018.
If the footage had been made available as legally required, they could have figured issues like that out during trial. Unfortunately the footage was not made available by the state, and now it's questionable whether Chansley will appeal, given how he will be released shortly. Jonathan Turley has a good summary of the situation: https://jonathanturley.org/2023/03/08/did-the-qanon-shaman-g...
It's not true that "no one can survive a bank run", though, and that's why SVB is at fault here, and not just a victim of circumstance.
They weren't at risk of failing when TARP passed. If TARP hadn't passed, and a few of their counterparties had gone bankrupt, they might have been next as the whole system went under.
Pretty much. I know you're trying to be sarcastic but the class of "mistakes" that took down banks back then really doesn't happen anymore.
They didn’t liquidate $200 billion in MBS and treasury bonds in a week let alone a day.
Yes. The lesson from history is that no appeasement should ever be done. Any war, no matter how small or over how little a thing, MUST ALWAYS BE TOTAL. No war should ever end until one nation enacts genocide on another. Great plan.
Ah, thanks. I made the mistake of assuming any modern terminal would/should by default.
Tangentially related, https://mess.foundation/full-collection/ (Melbourne) and https://fiveg.net/ (Tokyo) are both wonderlands of noise history too.
Based on the FDIC/Fed/Treasury actions this afternoon, they have effectively removed the $250K limit as a practical thing. If you have a deposit, you will be "bailed out", "backstopped", whatever. In their press release they said if they need extra funds to cover deposits, there will be a special assessment on all banks, passed on to you and me. So there you go.
The word "bailout" is a distraction and red herring. For example, FT and Yellen use it as a weasel word here.

I notice several articles and threads derailing into conflations of semantic arguments around what a bailout is with specifics of the topic.

This is a trend (and, I suspect, tactic) on other topics and it only serves polarization. Try to not fall into this trap. It can be possible to call it out in a way which does not further derail the conversation.

(Saying it's a trend does not mean it's merely a recent thing BTW)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weasel_word

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essentially_contested_concept

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persuasive_definition

Whether the statement "this is a bailout" is true or not is actually irrelevant.
actually, not making payroll is one of the conditions that can pierce the corporate veil, shareholders would need to pony up more money. But in the bankruptcy situation before that, payroll would be at the front of the line for the trustee to pay out to first, assuming some assets which of course there are.
> They get a lot of press and mindshare, especially in SV, but the majority of internet-adjacent companies and engineers are not involved in the search, content, or advertising industries.

This is a pretty big divergence from GP's comment. Besides, many of them are customers of the same industry buying ads, or vendors selling data. The whole thing reeks of needless fingerpointing. While consumers keep feeding their data and money to these companies. They don't have to. Consumers are trading personal info and preferences for convenience and dopamine.

Who's the worse bad guy here? It seems like everyone is getting what they want one way or the other. I'd argue that making the internet addictive is the real problem here.

Not saying this to justify any of it, it's just the reality I see.