skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> Bailing out the owners is obviously completely out of the question, but why bail out the depositors beyond the guarantees they knew they were getting at the time?

The insured amount is absolutely guaranteed. However, it's still standard for a failed bank to make it's depositors whole.

I don't have sources, but data I've seen indicates of the nearly 600 bank failures since 2000, few, if any, have resulted in a loss of deposits.

----

Put another way. Most employees don't have contractual obligations to receive severance. However, it's culturally expected that businesses performing layoffs will offer severance. Those who don't risk people not coming to work for them.\

Same situation in the US. The USD and it's banking system is seen as incredibly stable and robust. When chinks start to form, it raises concern and people might start looking to bank in other currencies.
I've stayed in plenty of suite hotels with kitchens (and, obviously, bathrooms). They don't depend on opening a window to vent.
Many types of visitors do not need an ETA when traveling to the US. Specifically the Visa Waiver Program (covers ~50 countries) does not require travel plans nor do most visits from Canadians. This is different because it applies to all visitors.

I am under the impression some types of Visas allow reentry without declaring ETA ahead of times, but I am unsure.
The key is that it's a fixed representation. But if I pull your weights and create my own representation, it wouldn't surprise me if that was not considered a derivative work, in the same way I can publish someone else's recipe so long as I rewrite it.

In the end we'll see, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if courts ruled that the data itself was not protected.
Let's stop pretending this bank was an arbitrary choice. This bank was corrupt, it took overblown risks by design for years including even lobbying for lax regulation.

The VCs whose money those startups are built upon, have connections to this bank. This entire back acted like some VC venture, with explicit design of taking the risk of zero return.

0 dollars should be given to depositors. Absolutely zero. These griefters learned how to use the common people as meat shields. It's the CFO of Lehman brothers. Let the VCs who supported this lose their investments and be forced to raise money now. If those businesses are worth something, investors will buy them. Let the VCs who gave bad advice be wiped clean from the investment. Their choices led to this.
Because of the many documented cases of him saying one thing in public and saying/doing the opposite in private. That applies to both of them. They are easily google-able.
UK working on cash lifeline for tech firms hit by Silicon Valley Bank collapse
Good analysis. Everyone should be very worried about these charts. In short, a lot of banks are sitting on assets that have significant unrealized losses, which is very similar to the situation leading up to 2008. If there is some event down the road that forces the banks to dip into their HTM assets to cover withdrawals or losses, then we could be looking at yet another systemic crisis. The cause will be different. But the banks are in a precarious position. Perhaps more importantly, this puts a ceiling on what the Fed can do to fight inflation. If they keep jacking rates the magnitude of the unrealized losses will increase.
Thiel Is to SVB as Potter Is to Bailey Building and Loan?
as someone who has a crappy passport, I laugh at "fees are going to add up" given we regularly pay $50+ (sometimes several hundred dollars) "application fees" for 1-3 week visit visas (sometimes you get lucky with 6 month or 1 year) and often wait 2-3 weeks for our passports to come back from the embassy.

If I'm planning to visit two countries in one trip, i have to plan that each embassy will hold my passport for a week or two (it really depends on the country).

These schemes are "harder" than what it used to be, but still a hoop i'd be ecstatic to jump through if i could.
I tried to read the article but got blocked by a "please disable your ad blocker".

No joke.
>(or had other positions or situations that would gain from SVB's failure)

Like for example he and all his startups keeping their money while some of their competitors don't? No need for any other bets for a bank run to benefit him
Not to mention the extra key strokes required to type an em dash! They have surely accelerated the onset of people's carpal tunnel syndrome by as much as a couple of minutes.

Will no one think of the wrists?!
> SVB-sized banks felt “safe” post-2008, apparently they’re not

I don’t think SVB has ever had an investment-grade (EDIT: issuer) credit rating. Certainly not in the last year.
She would have bailed out if there were a counter party risk. In this case, shareholders will be wiped out.
Consider that in open offices there is often no other place for people to go to take phone calls. There is always a shortage of conference rooms and phone booths because everybody wants/needs them
At the expense of taxpayers. That is the crux of the argument.

People are stressing the 250k FDIC requirement which is Federal and thus equal for everybody and it's one of the very few things that is equal for everybody across the land regardless of you living in Mobile, AL or San Jose, CA.

People are against the extra-insurance/safery-net/bailout being awarded to everything based in NYC and SF because everything in NYC and SF is supposedly too big and too important to fail. In this case it's not even failure but a minor inconvenience because as it stands the money is there, it's only tied up.
This article is kind of silly, as it seems to be based on the idea that nothing would be done to change the layout of these buildings before opening them up as living facilities. There's no reason each floor couldn't be gutted and refitted as lifing units; they currently reconfigure office layouts at will to suit the tenants.

It's kind of reminiscent of some of the arguments about grow houses made when cannabis was being legalized. The opponents couldn't seem to wrap their heads around the idea that when warehouses became available legally there was no more need for grow houses. If office buildings are being used as housing there's zero reason to keep them configured as office buildings.
If the company is large enough to need to hold millions in cash, multiple banks would be the simplest response.
Theoretically, if I'm specifically looking for something then consulting a resource about those things makes sense. Like a catalog.

But that isn't how advertising and marketing work is it? No, even your example is spamming people and hoping they give a shit. You're forcing them to deal with your bullshit so you can make a profit and that's detrimental to society.
Weights aren't a compressed representation of the data it was trained on because 99.99% of it can't be recovered verbatim. Also the fact that a piece of data is delivered to you free of cost doesn't mean they surrendered their copyright to you. This basically settles nothing.
> This is way too much pedantry and hyper-hyphen-focus. Honestly, I don't care about endashes or emdashes. I've never seen them in business or personal writing, and I probably never will. They add nothing to anyone's communications.

You have definitely seen them. All professional writing outlets, like e.g. the New York Times, use em-dashes, curly quotes, and other “typographic” characters that one is supposed to use in American English.

And newspapers in my own country follow the typographical rules. Even though no one uses it in informal communication on HN or FB. (Well, some on HN do.)
"Help depositors" means a taxpayer bailout of uninsured deposits
> In the UK, you are only covered up to £80k though...

Per bank.
It has parts of both. Not everyone becomes more receptive by payment.
Did you see the flyer at the bottom? They didn't misspell “computor”, like everyone else does by now. Apparently the author knew Latin.
Well I went to some of them :). It was pretty funny since I knew many people there - and we even talked about it at work. Around that time (2006) it was clear Mot was going to die so everyone was either looking for a new job or trying to get laid off with a nice severance package.

Apple booked a hotel conference room down the road from the Schaumburg office and had Apple engineers there. I even met with some of the original iPhone software team. They spoke with us and took our CVs, and if they liked you, flew you to 1 Infinite Loop for interviews.
FDIC receivership is not my money, it’s all self funded. Any bailout beyond that is taxpayer money. As a voter (and a guy who pays taxes) it is my money. I have a lot of opinions about how that money should be spent.

A bailout beyond FDIC receivership is simply a payout to VCs. SVB’s resolution will be a solid measure of much political clout they have.
I think the attention is put on some, likely, bonds backfiring. Not going into questioning how a 20y old bank would buy very long bonds as historically lowest returns. There is even more likely some bad lending in there in the order of billions that either have or are going going to materialise as defaults. And that's plain'n simple having to wipe numbers from the books, and those books aren't going to look good.

Banks take deposits but also loan with a 10x or even more ratio. Not difficult to imagine a SV bank would have lended a lot of cash, with marginal interests that aren't covering the actual risk.

Only speculation on my part there but needs to see further unwinding to bring some clarity or where the hole mostly comes from.

Until then, the narrative sounds far better than pointing out a widespread bad credit issue that other banks are also going to face in the coming months.

Edit: typos
hprotagonist probably has the most correct answer, but IMO no to both. Mostly because I’m looking at it from the spirit of copyright law, not the rule. The spirit is to encourage the creation of art/books/etc by allowing a artist/writer to make a living from their craft.

Not to mechanically create an index of facts about other art/writing, no matter its usefulness.
The first “recommended tweet” under the thread was some porn that I don’t even think is legal (hint: there was a dog involved). Posted 11 hours ago. I wonder what’s left of the content moderation team at Twitter.
Fun fact: the Volcker rule, which was like the diet glass steagall from 2008, was declawed a couple years ago.

This is what happens when you limit liability and bail these people out.
I'd like to state hypothesis (sounding like thesis. But please think of it as a start of discussion more than opinion written in stone) that ChatGPT won't produce original work of general physics-science theme because it doesn't have contact with reality. I think ChatGPT is/will be capable of 'understanding' the world/reality in as much as people will write about it in the internet. But by itself it doesn't observe nothing and has no thoughts about the world. If human won't observe something then ChatGPT won't observe it neither.

Not my main point but to be more nuanced I think ChatGPT could produce *some* amount of original science in places where people written about some phenomena but weren't able to connect the dots (come up with analogies shedding new light etc.). But ChatGPT won't go out looking for the dots.

I think it won't go looking for new dots because of 2 reasons.

1. It can't. It operates on language alone

2. It doesn't ask questions by itself. It only gives answers. It doesn't have the drive to seek knowledge. I'll try to illustrate my intuition: There was a gorilla Koko. She was taught to communicate with humans and could answer questions. But Koko didn't ask questions. She was observing the world but didn't have the concept of unknowns. The sphere of things she didn't know simply wasn't existing for her. I feel like ChatGPT is the same in that regard.

1. I can't find the article. I can be mistaken about Koko, but my illustration still stands.

2. (So many tangents....) Maybe 'curious' model could be built, but ChatGPT would only be a language part of the bigger model. Whole other paradigm would be responsible for curiosity part

Back to main point. I have problem with mathematics in the context of ChatGPT coming up with *original* work. I don't know what is the current consensus in philosophy of mathematics about it being discovered or invented.
If it's discovered (the fact that abstract mathematics seemingly not describing anything real happen to be used 50 years later as description of some part of reality would suggest that) then my 'not thesis - thesis' stands. It won't produce new original mathematics.
If it's invented then it won't need contact with reality and it (theoretically?) could *creatively/originally* advance mathematics (once it already exist).

Question. Mathematics originates in axioms. Maybe that's why it fits the world. Because people observing the world chose the axioms that made sense to them. So when it's advacing to it's logical conclusion it still happen to fit the reality. If mathematics wasn't formalized already would ChatGPT ever invent mathematics? Would it come with any kind of axioms?
Countless situations, like living in a rainy climate, have detrimental physical and mental effects, but we still allow it.
That can be handled in many other ways, including having people in suits as standins.

Often, that’s better than animatronics because they can move faster and react to the actors better.

What is shot on stage doesn’t have to be what’s used in the film, and it’s a common mistake that people who are critical of CGI make.
> by using blacksmith's bellows

Creating a pressure differential where air flows in immediately. As vacuum seemingly cannot be sustained without constant work, it seems that nature does indeed not like vacuums.

> vacuum is trivial to produce

But not trivial to sustain. And it would be a sustained vacuum if it were between the earth and the moon or sun.
https://tailscale.com/blog/introducing-tailscale-funnel/ is free for personal use
The statement you quote is true of all natural human languages, which is what matters here (if you do not agree, you should be able to refute it on purely grammatical grounds!)

As for behaviorism, it can stand or fall on its own merits (or lack of them), just as should the alternatives.
Actually it says it was done in Loki, which is explained in this journal article https://dl.acm.org/doi/abs/10.1145/3528223.3530058
Ask HN: Is it possible to specialize only in the programming part of Unity?
Hello everyone. I am a Sr Software Engineer with lot of years of experience, however, I'd like to start experimenting with gaming, maybe not to pivot to the industry but at least to work on some indie projects, etc.

Anyway, my design/artistic skills are horrible, so I was wondering if it's possible to work with Unity only on the coding/programming side, without having to worry about the artistic side (like modeling, rendering, etc). Is it possible to they are highly connected so it is not?

Anyone had experience doing this? I tried some googling but I couldn't find anything.

Thanks!
Throughout the lockdown Sweden had consistently worse death statistics than Denmark, Norway and Finland, which make the most sense to compare to geographically and culturally.

And it's still true Sweden's approach was worse than theirs:

> However, Sweden did much worse than its Nordic neighbours, with Denmark registering just 1.5% excess mortality and Finland 1.0%. Norway had no excess mortality at all in 2020.
> isn't coming out of taxpayer coffers. FDIC insurance premiums are paid by the banks

Fair enough. The FDIC is funded by premiums but backstopped by the Treasury. There is no private insurance function that pays out at this scale the next business day.
The idea copyright is to protect the author’s specific personality in the expression of an idea while, at the same time, allowing for the free circulation of the idea itself.

An ML model has no personality. It is not a legal entity. Also, its outputs are in no way the direct expression of the personality of those who trained it.

It is precisely this what differentiates ML from regular code: With regular code, it’s the programmer who solves the problem in a way that is similarly personal as someone writing a novel or an easy. But with ML, the specific implementation is found by the software itself.

You can’t have it both ways. Both not having to write the solution itself AND claim personal ownership of the results.

(But of course, we’ll see what the courts actually say.)
I think adults should be able to evaluate if they can put up with missing the health benefits of a window for improved location or reduced cost. Life is about tradeoffs.
On what aspect of your life do you want to improve? If you want to get a promotion at your job, giving up smoking won't help an awful lot... but knowing exactly what you want to change would give at least a clue on the "how".
Probably because people are willing to pay a small price (tourists and business travellers are cost-insensitive).
Nothing you said contradicts anything the article said. What are you nitpicking, exactly?

> The atmosphere does not really have an end.

Article clearly doesn't state it has an end. They said 99.9999% is below you. They then say the Karman Line is considered the "official" (IN QUOTES) start of outer space, implying that this is a somewhat arbitrary definition.

> And we do actually use our atmosphere above 100km to "affect motion". We place satellites in LEO well above 100km to assure they will eventually fall to Earth.

The article clearly stated "affecting motion" in relation to aerodynamic flight ("aerodynamic flight is no longer possible"). Wings are useless to generate lift at those altitudes. I wouldn't classify falling to Earth as "aerodynamic flight".
> Everyone who have ever managed bond portfolio knows that he must hedge interest rate risk.

Just a thought: the UK gilt crisis in December was related to pension funds holding long term gilts. And these pension funds all properly hedge the interest rate risk, they normally don't care how rates evolve.

However, the market value of the gilts was changing too fast for the hedging to work. My understanding is that money couldn't be moved around fast enough to meet margin calls. Which then caused a bad feedback loop of forced liquidations of gilts, and the Bank of England had to step in to handle the crisis.

So with this new story of duration risk at SVB, I'm wondering now whether other banks are in danger. They may have hedged their duration risk, but what if the hedging mechanism turns out to be broken?
> [...] SVB was actually assuming quite a bit of risk.

Honest question: compared to what?

Did long duration assets (like bonds) comprise a greater proportion of SVB's assets compared to, say, JP Morgan?

Or is the case that JP Morgan is as insolvent as SVB, but JPM's depositors are less likely to withdraw their funds (because it's a big bank and it has primarily retail customers)?

These are honest questions; I'm not suggesting JPM is in the same situation. However, I'd like to see some numbers.
> retcon

Just learned something new
If things get dire enough, the government can intervene to protect workers in various ways (unemployment benefits, emergency housing, government employment - there are many options).

No need to prop up the middlemen with free insurance.
Right, they told their clients to run for the exits, caused a collapse on their uninsured deposits - and now expect a handout (and will get it).
Oh, that's a good analogy. Thanks!
You’re a couple years late on that idea: https://steemit.com/advertising/@shazow/the-million-dollar-h...
This comment sounds very harsh on first reading but I'm having trouble finding anything actually incorrect about it ... I just pray this doesn't hit the wider economy.
That's... just not true.

We know these models capture aspects of the training dataset, otherwise training wouldn't be a thing. That's the entire point.

We also know these models create a very compact representation of the data they derive.

So it is perfectly reasonable to think of these things as a compressed representation. Is it lossy? Yes, of course. But so what?
As a wise man once said:

“Programming today is a race between software engineers striving to build bigger and better idiot-proof programs, and the Universe trying to produce bigger and better idiots. So far, the Universe is winning.”

There’s a comparable race between hardware engineers striving to build faster and more capacious systems and programers blithely consuming all the cpu and memory they can find. So far, the programmers are winning that one.
One of the deepest problems in talking about human development is people confusing a negative with a lack of a positive.

It's easy to talk about removing negatives but if there is some positive you don't have it's very difficult to think about or talk about because you don't even know it is there. Thus there is a common fantasy that Dianetics-style you can erase a negative and become awesome but actually if you erase a negative you might just be... nothing.
Incidentally, it seems that Chrome somewhat recently released an update that unloads tabs from memory if you haven't interacted with them in a while. In my personal experience, this seems to have led to a pretty remarkable drop in RAM consumed by it on my high-memory systems. Yet it doesn't seem to be terribly popular so far.

I guess our desires to have plenty of RAM available are secondary to our desires to have 100 tabs open at once, a quarter of which have a ton of sophisticated JS behavior, and never lose application state in any of them. Oh well.

You could always look at this the other way - I did pay for that 32GB of RAM, why shouldn't it be actively used for things I find at least sort of useful instead of staying forever unused in support of some abstract notion of how being paltry with RAM use is good, or for some possible other task I want to do that does need lots of RAM.
1. No. The weights are not a work of authorship. Nobody takes any intentional action to make the weights be what they are. Only works of authorship are copyrightable. And a copyright comes into being as the property of an author... which, as I said, models don't have.

The closest thing to authorship that happens is curation of the training data, but that's too tenuous to support a copyright. For one thing, the curation choices aren't directly targeted to shape the weights themselves, only the output when a separate program runs inference on those weights. And even for the output, there's probably not enough direct control there to support much of a claim of authorship.

And the people building the models had better hope that's true, because if that curation is strong enough to support a copyright, then it's really hard to claim that the contributions from the training data aren't strong enough to make the model a derivative work of every single training item.

2. No. The last thing we need is more ways for people with a bit of capital to get vast sweeping IPR claims.

Also, isn't about time HN got a real Markdown engine?