skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> You think the CEO of a 100 person startup should be worried about something like a bank run happening?

Yes. Not specifically a bank run, but bank failure. Cash is the lifeblood of a company. Let's not worry about our cash becoming unavailable, in a bank that buys risky assets with our cash, in a perilous interest rates environment, "cuz it's not 1920."
You can only live on clean Debian if you have no core dependencies for your reasons to want to run Debian, which depend on running frankdendebian.

The reason computers are bought is generally not as the end in itself: few people outside of the core run Debian simply to prove they can: there is some external drive, motivation to want to achieve, using Debian as a platform.

If you can't fulfill that core drive on a clean Debian install, is it really a serious proposition to go back to your clients, paymasters and say "sorry, I can't run this task because.. the Debian developers dont WANT me to add in this other APT registry, or install this code in /usr/ paths outside of their distribution channel management"
just a guess, afaik syscalls for reads and writes get buffer as a pointer, and java have GC, so if thread gets interrupted, there could happen GC cycle and memory could be moved to different location, so read would write to outdated memory location potentially causing memory corruption.
(I didn't check code, but I bet canceling happens before suspending thread)

Could be similar why rust have Pin macros.
> My friend, you don't own the reality,

But neither do you. Reality exists independently from either of us, but only one of us seems to be paying attention to it.

> neither you have right to baselessly accuse anyone of lying.

I'm not doing it baselessly, though. All of the things you've said that I've called out as lies, are lies, blatant untruths, and/or have been thoroughly debunked.

> Don't pretend like you didn't understand the message.

The message that you're not limiting yourself to just one debunked conspiracy theory? Yeah, I got that.

> Nobody gives a shit about the Planet

Don't project your own cynicism on others.

> you may want to look at "climate change" scam preachers - they use private jets

No, those are the oil executives, as well as hypocrites who love to pretend to be doing good while only being in it for attention. The actual climate activists don't fly by private jets, and many of them rarely or never fly at all. I'm not exactly on the forefront of climate activism, but even I haven't flown in years.

You're only paying attention to the rich and famous, and not to the real people on the ground.

You're only paying attention to the hypocrites and think you're pointing out something new when you say they're hypocrites, but everybody knows that already. But because the hypocrites are talking about the environment, you conclude that everybody who talks about the environment must be a hypocrite, and therefore it must be false, but that's not how logic works. There are hypocrites talking about every topic, including yours, but that doesn't make every person on Earth a hypocrite or every topic false.

You're clutching at your own selection bias to prove your own strawman. But the only one who falls for that backwards logic is you.

> I suggest to have a look what "climate change" preachers were preaching and predicting 10-15-20-30 years ago and how many of those predictions have happened. I'll save you time - it's zero. But don't trust me, do you own research.

I'm sure you've cherry-picked your own selection of outrageous claims to prove your point, but if you actually did your research honestly, you'd see it's not zero. Many predictions have come true.

A small selection:

* Temperatures are rising. This has been quite thoroughly documented. I think the past 8 years are the 8 hottest years on record. Most of the hottest years on record have happened since 1998.

* Glaciers are melting. Lots of glaciers are significantly smaller or have disappeared completely.

* Sea ice is melting. North Pole ice is smaller and smaller every year.

* Weather is getting less stable. Some areas get unprecedented floods, others extreme draughts. Blizzards in Texas, balmy weather on the North Pole.

Of course there have been alarmists who turned the thing into a caricature, but those have always been called out as nonsense.

> Nothing is "destabilising" it, this Planet allegedly existed over 4.6bn years, and likely will exist more.

Read more carefully. The climate is destabilising. Not the planet. Nobody is saying the planet will explode. That's even beyond the more usual nonsense caricatures.
No, they liquidated those positions at a loss because of outflows. They are actually short the cash.
lol

The right-libertarian techbros at All-In Podcast are the last people who will tell you the truth about this. They are at the core of the rot. David Sacks will probably do his usual monologue blaming dead Ukrainian children.
I offer you a capydoga.
I have no problem with auto formatters, because I do not fuss about white space. I turn off whitespace changes when viewing diffs. The end.
Are you also willing to pay a fee for that when interest rates are so low the bank does not earn enough spread to cover the costs of maintaining those accounts?
The WSJ editorial board disagrees with everything the Biden admin does. I am yet to see an a WSJ opinion say ANYTHING positive about the Biden admin. If someone here has seen such an article I would love to see the link.
When someone is this one-sided, it is hard to take them seriously.
If this was some big bank serving farming companies in Oklahoma this never would have happened. This only happened because wealthy and powerful politically connected investors stood to lose billions if it didn't. And surprise, they're all Democrats.

Once again, politicians serving their masters.
SVB had risks, VCs did what they should do to respond to said risk. Would you blame regular working class people in a retail bank run scenario for wanting to save their money from potential risk?
You think the CEO of a 100 person startup should be worried about something like a bank run happening?

Yes. A CEO should know where the money is, what the risks are, and how to handle them.
Why do we assume that fat is bad for you, but muscle is always good for you. The blood necessary to maintain excessive muscle is still excessive to normal humans, and may put strain on the heart. Only our skin grows with our muscles, other organs do not grow in tandem.

I've always thought that while BMI is crude, it still is reasonable for measuring metabolic syndrome, considering that many of the things associated with heart problems involve the needing a powerful heart, when adding any mass whatsoever will necessarily increase the work the heart must do.
I see this a lot but no, profit is actually (double) taxed.
Can't wait for the wasm in-browser implementation on HN tomorrow...
Also that looking through the manual at things you already (think you) know, you learn a lot.

There was a time when all OS's did this. I had a DOS binder, from which I learned 80x86 Assembler from the Debug chapter. And since I grew up on QNX, I managed to score myself a set of QNX manuals that are actually still on my shelf today because its such an interesting OS.

Nowadays we're paperless. The info is all still there. Just not as beautifully presented.
> not because they took risky bets on startups.

SVB regularly provides credit to risky startups, which is why they existed in the first place (because other banks wouldn't lend at those rates). So, yes, they sorta did place risky bets on startups.
Huge +1 for Practical Engineering.

This guy is doing a public service. He admittedly loves public infrastructure and civil engineering and does an amazing job of balancing the technical details and gist of the underlying physics and engineering constraints with the context of the real world applications.

Sometimes the topics are almost comically mundane, but I jumped into them and found it thoroughly interesting. One example is his 10-minute explainer "What is a Culvert"[1]. It's the perfect debunking of something seeming "trivial" to the casual observer. In another video he comments on why on construction sites you see so many folks "just standing around".

He has videos you can watch with your kids about things you might ordinarily just wave your hands about, like "How Water Towers Work"[2]. And then bigger more much involved explanations on topics you certainly have heard of but never bothered to look into, like "What Really Happened During the 2003 Blackout?"[3].

lol I feel like I sound like a advertisement but I really just love his work and thoroughly recommend having this channel in your repertoire. He's also just earnest, not unnecessarily dire or animated, and often gives what feel like fair and balanced perspectives on some of the social issues surrounding these topics.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15XJDmawbYU
[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZwfcMSDBHs
[3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KciAzYfXNwU
Yeah unfortunately it’s ergonomically A Thing to just accept object as input even if you only care about keys. Otherwise I’d have the exact signature you describe.
That link isn’t loading. What statement did I make that’s in disagreement?
A prereq for running a business should be the ability to analyze and evaluate bank stability?
> My intuition is: evaluating in Lean and embedding the result in the toy language is identical to big step evaluation in the toy language.

Yes, I think that's right.

> But I can't parse the theorem.

I think there's a bit of a divide between languages with tactic-based proofs and languages without tactics, and it looks like both Lean and Isabelle use tactics.

I've gotten very comfortable with Agda over the past year. Agda doesn't have a real tactics metalanguage; but I honestly prefer working with proof terms, since it's easier (I feel) to write comprehensible proofs. While tactics make for very compact proofs, I think giving a proof some space to breathe is a good thing -- I'm interested in why it's true, not only that it's true.

I think the analogous theorem in Conor McBride's Agda version of this development is here [1]:

ev=>* : {t : Ty} (x : Exp t)
-> x =>* ve (ev x)

where "eval _" in Lean becomes "ev x", and "_.embed" becomes "ve _".

The theorem body is heavily commented (nice!), and each case is handled explicitly and in full. While the development is probably a little bit longer than in Lean or Isabelle, I find it easier to approach.

[1] https://github.com/pigworker/Samizdat/blob/main/ExampleSeman...

> I could not write this stuff. It looks simple but it isn't.

True that. I bounced a number of times off of proof assistants before it stuck. Like I said, I feel very comfortable with Agda now; but I won't claim this is easy.
It’s opinion. It’s also wrong. This isn’t a bailout. Bankers and shareholders are getting their just rewards; customers are made whole.
It’s almost as if you’re an obscure bank built on crypto deposits you shouldn’t be a bank at all.
All our efforts are spent on improving our products, we've never sought any financial advisors and spent exactly zero time worrying about the liquidity of the bank we're with. Any funds left over from business operations are simply left in the bank they were collected in.

But sure after knowing this event is possible and that effectively all small US Banks are at risk of a Bank run we'll be moving to a top 3 bank that's too big to fail, then go back to focusing all our efforts on improving our products as usual.
I mean...I think we're describing the same thing? So sure, it worked "exactly as described", but I think most folks on HN have no idea what "as described" means, in this context.

A lot of folks (like the top of thread) want to suggest that because it didn't play out like the 60 minutes story, it must mean something significant. That story barely touched on the weeks of leg-work the FDIC did for that particular bank, for example. If you weren't paying close attention, you'd miss it.
That wasn't the point and also they will still have jobs because by in large SVB will continue operations.
What are you on about?

The final decision was eminently reasonable.

The bank's shareholders are getting wiped out. The depositors are protected. Banks -- who depend on the continued faith of the public -- chip in a little more in insurance. The taxpayer pays nothing.

A bunch of software companies get to succeed or fail now on the basis of whether their business models and execution make any sense, as opposed to whether their bank bought enough interest-rate swaps.

Small regional banks can continue to exist. This will not necessitate even more consolidation in American capitalism. And there will be no follow-on bank runs to jeopardize grandma's CDs.

Seriously, what is there to complain about? The government did its job here. It governed. Fairly and competently.
Seems to use about 40~ GB RAM here...
I hear the technology is ready.
The US Treasuries, like 10Y and 30Y, trade on the basis like you describe.

All you gotta do is put a dollar value on it, which is actually relatively easy. Just calculate the approximate worth of 2033 dollars vs 2023 dollars, and adjust the prices today to match your expectations.

There "is no risk" in US Treasuries because we're screwed if there are risks. (Aka, everyone ignores things like the Debt Ceiling debate).
It fits, whisper.cpp uses 4 bit quantization, 13B model takes a little bit more than 8gb and around 9gb ram while inferencing.
> The status quo, developed over literal centuries of bank regulation, is generally to let depositors take a haircut

Only if you go by common wisdom pre-Great Depression, which helped cause the Great Depression. But the opposite lessons have been learned since. That's why the FDIC was created in the aftermath of the Great Depression. It's the basis of the Nobel Prize winning Diamond–Dybvig model which inspired the TARP in the GFC which actually returned a profit to taxpayers. If depositors have too much skin in the game, it creates the potential for a bank run, which benefits nobody and harms everybody.

> increase in moral hazard

Which is where regulations need to come in. That's the bargain. You get FDIC guarantees, and I get to regulate you. It's a better bargain than the old wild west of bank runs and financial collapse.

Anyway, depositors as agents aren't good mediators of a bank's risk. There are too many informational asymmetries for that to be a good mechanism to rely on.
The FDIC fund.
A bit of trust. I’m not aware of a type system that protects my coworkers from my bad decisions, only those humans do that.
No "stablecoin" is ever going to actually be stable and fully liquid when there's multiple middlemen with their own agendas between the coin and the eponymous backing.
Depositor get a bail out, additionally every other small bank depositors with over $250k are now backstopped with promise of bailouts. Funding for bailouts is coming from an additional tax on banks.
Hey everyone, banking is a safe endeavour. When you fail. we'll give you money. So keep on building banks. Startup banks. Any type of bank. We love them. You see, our taxpayers are absolutely thrilled about them.

- USA
The $250k coverage (per depositor) is also funded by taxpayers, right?
i thought it was an unnecessarily ambiguous way to phrase it; 'fully protects all depositors' and 'will have access to all of their money' doesn't explicitly say that they won't take a haircut; after all, after a haircut, you still have access to all of your money, it's just that 'all of your money' is less than it was before

it relies on the following paragraph to be explicit that all depositors will be made whole and will not lose any money
This is quite different than a bailout. They can’t just go to their customers and say, hey, we got this bill now you have to pay for it. They can raise fees, but then customers can go to another bank. They can lower what they pay in interest rates, but again, customers can go to other banks. Or customers can buy treasuries instead of keeping money in bank accounts. Banks are not the only place to keep money, nor the only way to raise money. Sure, chances are that some of the money will come from raising rates on customers, but some of this will just come out of bank profits.
As I read his post, he's talking about punishing the bank executives as much as the depositors.

So, clawing back every penny they took for doing sound risk management while not actually doing it is totally fair.
If SVB did fail with depositors not getting more than $250k back then it would be a contagion. I did find some VC tweets overly dramatic but the underlying messaging is still right.
I'm not saying we allow them to starve and die. They can apply for SNAP, EBT, and Medicaid, just like everybody else if they become truly penniless. Get a job delivering Jimmy Johns. Or just sell their vacation homes.
The wealth didn’t evaporate, it’s just tied up for a long time. The actual costs to the FDIC will probably be pretty low for SVB’s deposits.
I'm just some jackass that knows about FDIC limits and how they (used to) work, and I'm as far from a CEO as I can be. I absolutely expect CEOs to be thinking about this stuff.
You need to wait for the terminal WiiU emulator.
This is great. As someone who enjoys the aviation industry and needs something to listen to while I work, its nice to have two things to be used at the same time.
It is well-known that the austerity ushered in by Cameron's new Conservative goverment heavily contributed to excess deaths.

After a decade of continued underfunding of public services, leading to a collapsed social and health service, you realise the question really isn't that deep
Seems to me that Textual is at v0.14.0?
Exactly. They are very bitter at the thought of depositors (people who entrusted the U.S. banking system) getting bailed out.
I have never seen such cognitive dissonance here at HN -- which I feel is really saying something! As an SVB customer who had to wire payroll on Tuesday, our perspective is naturally sharpened, but I found the lack of empathy here over the weekend galling. On the one hand, this is understandable, and Silicon Valley has done much to earn collective distrust. On the other hand, this is emphatically not all of us: many of us have been outspoken about our disagreements with the techbro culture, and have endeavored to create companies that are exemplars of what we want to see in the world. Speaking personally, I spent a lot of time DM'ing people privately who were saying absolutely outrageous things online, and almost uniformly hearing back: "No no, not you -- I love what you're doing." Well, if you want to see startups solving hard technical problems we need to have some real talk about how that has to be structured financially -- and maybe stop tweeting images of guillotines when our employees are anxious about their next paycheck?
We've had bank runs as long as there have been banks. Short of keeping all the cash in the banks safe, there's no fix that's 100% safe. Bank bailouts and pseudo-bailouts are just part of doing business for the government. We might need higher reserves but there are consequences to that too. It means banks have less to lend to help the economy function.
That's what they're saying, yeah.
What do you use it for, out of curiosity? Can it do shell autocompletes (this is what “ghost in the shell” made me think of, haha).
The goal of interest rate hikes is to cause money destruction through the banking system. But since depositors get a bailout if a bank fails due to these interest rate hikes, won’t that counteract the goal? It seems the transmission mechanism for interest rates to control inflation may be broken.
I'm pretty sure that a WASM option isn't going to happen any time soon. The 7B model is 4 GB at int4. WASM has 32 bit addresses and a limit of 4 GB of ram. Maybe this will make wasm64 more of a thing.
I get what you're saying. But by that token any fines that are levied against banks are also paid by taxpayers. So if you're saying that this move is wrong since it puts the burden on taxpayers, then we shouldn't fine banks either?
First from the assets of SVB (IOW, from the shareholders’ equity). After that, there is the possibility of special assessments from other member banks, consistent with the (quite short) Treasury statement: “Shareholders and certain unsecured debtholders will not be protected. Senior management has also been removed. Any losses to the Deposit Insurance Fund to support uninsured depositors will be recovered by a special assessment on banks, as required by law.”
How is that banned? The Fed Fund Rate is effectively the same as the 1yr Treasury Note, except even if everything collapses like the Black Monday, 2008 or March 2020 (trifecta of bonds,stocks and commodities collapsing) you (as a commercial bank) can always and in any event access those funds.
If it is not a bailout...What was the 250K FDIC limit for?
I don’t understand. Who is “feigning?” Why is that the basis? I’m saying, let’s judge intelligence based on benchmarks.

No problem with probabilistic methods. Human intelligence is also probabilistic (ie, predictive coding). Maybe the biggest question: do you think these will be exponentially more powerful in 5 years, learning from failures, self-improving and generally economically “a very big deal” due to human replacement? Because that’s what AGI is supposed to do, rapidly—and that’s why it is worth acknowledging the possibility.

From my perspective, if it barks like a dog, walks like a dog… fulfills all the “dog” benchmarks… even if it came about through unusual means, you’d better consider the possibility.

All these experts Pooh-poohing the possibility of AGI because “I’ve worked with LLMs” is really unconvincing. The debate isn’t balanced because most professionals wouldn’t want to claim AGI for professional reasons.
Yeah which is why... Unified memory on Chromebooks and android devices as well as surface pro serve the same purpose.

It's marketed as an upsell by apple because it's an advantage of ARM but many people will never care to learn what that means
Moral hazard once again. At least previously there was a 5% haircut, now apparently nothing. And the loan is against the par value, not market value.

If 2008 did not do it, 2023 has institutionalized moral hazard in the financial system. Never, fear the Fed is here! We will absorb all!
I'm happy this happened, and it's likely to prevent other bank runs in the near term, but the moral hazard and lack of clarity induced by the government changing policies last minute makes decisions about how to treat money and how to park it really frustrating.

Am I good to ignore the $250K FDIC limit forever because this will happen next time too?

Will unlimited FDIC backing apply to money in brokerage sweep accounts?

Can I park money in a money market fund instead of a bank account now and enjoy higher yields? Because even though it's not technically insured the government will save the day?

Are all banks equal now in safety, so I can just pick the highest CD rate regardless of whether it seems sketchy? How about muni bonds?

No longer can we just read the sign that's literally posted at these banks "insured to at least $250K" and the disclaimers about lack of insurance on other products and know what anything means.

(And, cynically and perhaps irrationally, while I'm glad the startup world is not imploding, I can't help but think of the parties, events, and other goodies that SVB treated VCs and founders to instead keeping more liquid assets on hand...)
You could say that about anything though. Even if you do heal someone's cancer or change someone's life, they'll still die in the end anyway.

I'm now in my 40s and have realized lately, it doesn't really matter what you do and you don't need to rationalize it to anyone. If you enjoy it and it doesn't hurt anyone, then do it. It doesn't need to change the world.