skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I'm just used to keeping all my aliases together for easy location with alias command and I like having ones with arguments with the others.

Aside from that, no benefit really that I can think of.

So yes, to be clear to anyone else you can just put:

wiki(){ w3m -F "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=${1}&title=Special:Search&ns0=1"; }

in your .bashrc - and if you're me you just forget how you defined it and you have to cat it every once in a while :)

Oh, and you might be entertained by this silly alias adapted from an IOCC entry...

$ cstdin
printf("Hello World\n");
Hello World

alias cstdin='gcc -pedantic -ansi -Wall -o ~/.stdin ~/.stdin.c -lm && ~/.stdin'

$ cat ~/.stdin.cc
#include <stdio.h>
<snip many headers>
int main(int argc, char **argv)
{
#include </dev/tty>
return 0;
}

I'm sure it would also make way more sense as a dedicated script. I have a C++ one in there too.
No. SVB price crashed 50% in one day and got downrated by Moodys, which exposed a bunch of red flags that would have resulted in a bank run regardless of what VCs said.
Regulators close Signature bank, say depositors will be made whole
It's impossible to move on. There were insufficient funds to pay depositors; meaning, the money was gone - Since the money didn't vanish into thin air; somebody got that money through some scheme.

Now taxpayers are going to be footing the bill... It's a government-ordained transfer of wealth from good, honest taxpayers to whatever (possibly malicious) entities got that money.

It's theft. It's straight theft. Not even complicated. Theft is now legal depending on who you are.
These aren't children. They are grown adults many in the later years of their life.

Nobody is changing their stripes.
This is … quite the misrepresentation though? No one sold their entire stake, one executive’s (albeit, sure, the CEO) pre-planned sale of a small portion of his holding executed two weeks ago.

Not a great look, but quite from what you’re insinuating.
I can only partially agree to this, they did a lot of creative accounting and weren't hedging their interest rate risk. Do you really expect a retail depositor to understand fully the implications of a large bank not holding adequate interest rate swaps? This seems like the perfect example where government oversight is needed as not everyone is an expert in this
You're going too far by calling VCs "rent seekers". They do provide value with other peoples' money to build companies. No matter how much people love to hate them, they are a necessary part of the startup ecosystem. Most of them fail and end up in tears in the long run -- it's just the nature of VC. There's no need to punch them when they're down.
There is nothing but economic interest. If you want to predict how any company, startup or not, will behave just look at how they make money. In 99% of the cases companies act according to their business model. It is that simple, there is nothing else. All the "we will make the world a better place" rhetoric and mission statements are just recruiting and PR BS.
https://www.cfr.org/global-conflict-tracker/conflict/war-yem...

It is not possible for a country in the position of the US to not get its hands dirty, this isn't a touchy feel world. You are engaging is false equivocation.
iTerm2 has had that for ages. I used it back in 2013
It's a bailout.

They're putting the cost, presently unknown and probably not huge, on the other banks. But the message to depositors everywhere, of every size, is "don't worry about your bank's solvency, we'll protect you".

So market scrutiny is removed as a discipline on bank asset strategy. That leaves regulation as the only control. That politicizes and bureaucratizes bank lending. And the general presumption that Big Government will protect you from yourself is extended just another smidge.

If you had the wit to think "hey, maybe I should be careful with $5 million" and bothered to put it in T-bills or an insured sweep, you're just a nerd who should know the Government will take care of such things.

It isn't the end of the world, but it's a sign of how corrupt and complacent we've become.
Joe Weisenthal (who is always worth listening too in matters of finance) put it well here: https://twitter.com/thestalwart/status/1634985524007157760?s...

Some VCs were definitely better than others: the very worse was probably the All In Crew who were trying to spread a bank run to tie the government's hand. Truly despicable.
I'm talking about the uninsured depositors. Who are first in line after the DINBoSC liquidates SVB's assets. And it doesn't matter what actually shakes out in the end; even if some miracle occurred and the FDIC convinced some other bank to buy out the rubble of SVB, or they managed to sell off SVB's assets without taking a loss (virtually impossible), that does not change whether or not this was a bailout.

Because before any of that was announced, the FDIC and Treasury said that no matter what, they will guarantee uninsured depositors will be made whole. That is not what the rules are, those depositors are getting special treatment not afforded to anyone else. They gambled (and most apparently didn't know it), lost, and the FDIC are going to make sure they don't take a haircut.
These models aren’t finetuned to understand conversational requests like ChatGPT is. You have to prompt it by giving it the beginning of the thing you want instead.

Try

def prompt_user_for_miles_and_convert_to_kilometres:
Weren't these 10-year bonds and negative-convexity MBS? 12 months doesn't improve the position at all, but maybe you can keep applying for these loans in which case it's just another QE.
I see lots of screaming on twitter, I don't find this unusual or particularly bad.

Everyone would want their money back ...
They benefited with White Glove treatment and easy access to loans. They weren't depositing it there out of the goodness of their hearts. That's why SVB was hunting for yield.
Hey, there’s nothing wrong with the government protecting people when they lose everything due to circumstances beyond their control. I’m glad to see VCs finally fighting for their progressive ideals.
> Most of the risk to the bank remains

If everything else stays the same sure. Bankers would get creative really quickly to put most of their gains somewhere else.

SVB wasn't necessarily playing fast and loose more than anyone else. They were just in a high risk highly liquid sector and had what wasn't high liquidity tied up in securities.
The people I lost respect for was a large portion of HN commenters calling on bank depositors - largely small businesses - to be snuffed out because there was a run on their bank. The comments have largely been factually wrong, misleading, and downright psychopathic. I am glad our government is not controlled by such people, but I question the value of this forum going forward given the large portion of it that is so incredibly toxic and so poorly informed.
Literally the whole point of a startup is to make a lot of money?
I am really, really not a fan of the guy. However making cash deposits and taking out loans are two very different things.
I just love that all the people who have discovered treasury management this week think that a) the only way to do that is keep $250k in n accounts, and b) that even if that's what people did, it would be so incredibly burdensome.

If startups want to take on bank risk, great. If they don't, also great, and there are many ways for them to do that. They are allowed to manage their risks as they see fit. If they can't, that is not a problem for taxpayers to solve. I get why some people here are pitching "socialism, but only for would-be billionaires", but I promise it's not a winning proposition in the wider world.
I'm no expert, but that Utah bank sounds pretty risky to me.

At least treasuries and MBS are relatively liquid securities that can be quickly sold at prices that don't deviate much from their marks as long as you're marking to market.

Those loans to local businesses and home owners sound much, much scarier.
The bank doesn't exist anymore and its shareholders got nothing. The customers' reward is they can make payroll. What bailout?
Well the Dalai Lama famously has a better sense of humor.
I appreciate you following the guidelines and making the most good faith interpretation of my statement /s
If your bug ends up risking the economy of the country definitly yes.
But Public Humiliation is not the solution because if it worked we ould not have the same executives who failed LB fail yet another Bank. There should be Legal conseguences for this type of mismanagement.
+1

Great work, love this!
Skill does not necessarily manifest as impact. Someone having positive impact in one org will have negative impact in the same role on another.
Thread interrupts are a purely Java thing [1]. Probably when the blocking operation detects that the interrupt flag is set, they cancel the internally asynchronous operation, but can’t do so on all platforms without also closing the channel.

You should still be able to share FileChannels between threads when all immediate client code is under your control so you can handle that situation gracefully.

[1] It’s just a flag you can set on a thread, requesting the thread to stop its operation (the thread is not required to comply), and longer-running operations like I/O can choose to test that flag, and typically throw some exception when it is set. The default exception type for this is InterruptedException, but here they chose to throw a subclass of IOException, probably exactly because it also closes the channel.
I think it's this one: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35114009
Can we all just be reasonable here? There is no black and white.

SVB clearly offered services that other banks couldn't or wouldn't provide - whether that be loans, credit cards, interest, or anything else.

They clearly fought to not be subject to specific regulations that bigger banks were subject to.

Was every depositor thinking about all this when choosing their banking decisions or were they just going with the bank their VC recommended? Probably the latter, but there's definitely some wiggle room here.
If you start using an extendible tool like Emacs for something and put in the effort to learn it's key bindings, how it works, it's language if it has one etc it becomes increasingly annoying and a chore to use other software.

You either start trying to cram every possible task into that tool or try to find other software that was developed specifically for users of that tool (eg: Nyxt and Qutebrowser).

It feels like a very natural thing to do at the time even if it sometimes results in subpar results like what you're describing. I've personally declared "Emacs bankruptcy" multiple times and even go through periods of completely changing workflows if I get annoyed enough.
And if it doesn't then what?
> No, that’s been the implicit rule since 2008 at least (arguably earlier).

No, depositors have lost money in failures since 2008. Its true that, for a long time, the FDIC has tried to resolve failures in a way which protects as much of the uninsured deposits as possible, but it has very much not been a guarantee.

The systemic risk exception invoked here is an exception.
But he was right? Certainly Yellen thought so. Why is screaming on twitter such a crime? Just block him.
> Not yet, data collection takes time.

There is no evidence except for a few sketchy anecdotes from hyperchondriacs
The same way I feel bad for someone who is at fault in an accident and gets hurt. I don't like seeing bad things happen to people or see people suffer. Those employees who work for these companies don't have a lot of say where the company keeps their money.
Because it's a problem requiring graduate-level finance knowledge? Because it's so difficult that even the professionals find it challenging? Because the companies that go under were often working to hide that even from other sophisticated players?
Cause none that seems to have any thing to do with Financial Risk Management
Just curious what's so funny?
Makes sense to brand differentiate supercomputers and super(ai)computers for modeling the category of connectomes. Resuscitate the transputer concepts.
When you deposit money at a bank, it is made very clear to you that only $250K is protected by the FDIC. Any more, and you either buy insurance for it or take a risk on losing it in a bank failure.

These depositors knew that and still acted irresponsibly, yet they are going to be made whole. It’s not that much different from taking out a loan you don’t understand.
Silicon Valley Bank: the unravelling of the tech industry’s banker
That's tax evasion, not insider trading.
What is the “utterly despicable behaviour”? Startups trying to protect their investor’s assets? Banks trying to secure low risk long-term returns? Clearly they should have hedged, but is this really a moral failure?
What's the ELI5 of how this is supposed to work?
Ah I see, it doesn't load on mobile view.
And so the regulators are empowered to make a whole bunch of other decisions, such as asset and lending strategy.

I prefer to minimize regulators' control over decisions.

Perhaps you have noticed that regulators are at bottom politicians?
Am I just a total piece of shit

Not totally. Realize money doesn't come from sound technical design; it
comes from paying customers. Regardless of "this will hurt us in the
long run," the PM emphasis on "what have you done for me lately" should win.
No offense whatsoever intended but I think you were following some very poor financial advice.
The first president of the USA was 57 years old when he assumed office (George Washington). Nowadays, the US electorate expects the new president to be more young at heart. President Donald Trump was 70 years old when he was inaugurated. In contrast to his predecessors, he is physically fit, healthy and active. And his fitness has been a prominent theme of his presidency. During the presidential campaign, he famously said he would be the “most active president ever” — a statement Trump has not yet achieved, but one that fits his approach to the office. His tweets demonstrate his physical activity.

Eh? Which bit is politically incorrect?
I don't share the belief, but i've heard it said from others with such beliefs that the naming association is offensive by itself because of the relative importance of the figures.

imagine that 'Fabio' is the spiritual leader of your religion, a walking talking deity among humans on Earth. You worship Fabio with all of your effort, and believe he is infallible. Your culture has precepts that forbid the casual use of Fabio's name in petty regard.

On the other side of the Earth, at the same time, is someone who names their new powerboat 'Fabio'.

I perceive it as that kind of offense. The (so-called) 'petty' use of a word that drives much stronger emotion in others.

That said, I don't share the belief -- and I like such names; but I can understand the conflict.
It depends what you're talking about. Especially as people age, it doesn't always take as much as you'd think.
It does have a fund of money to cover such losses, but the document also says:

> Any losses to the Deposit Insurance Fund to support uninsured depositors will be recovered by a special assessment on banks, as required by law.

So banks are going to have to cough up extra money beyond their normal FDIC premiums for this.

But it's not like those costs will be passed on to customers, right? /s
How many startup employees do you believe are making 300k? That’s FAANG, big-tech companies that were in no way affected by SVB going under. If anything, startups are known for paying below market rate because they have tighter margins and compensate with the tenuous promise that more money might be made in the form of stock options if the company makes it big, which usually doesn’t pan out.
I imagine you are not looking too hard. I have met many people who have dedicated their life to service and not greed. Richard Stillman is one if you need an example.
It’s not strictly speaking taxpayers, it’s anyone with a bank account at a U.S. bank. But same effect.
You're not thinking what the most logical course of action would be for all companies that use regional banks. It would be to get your money out ASAP on Monday and into JPM or BOA. That's why the treasury has stepped in.
https://archive.is/LZZqs

"A sale by SVB of $20bn of securities to mitigate a steep drop in deposits had focused investors’ attention on vulnerabilities in its balance sheet. They dumped its stock, wiping $10bn off its shares and crashing the market value of the bank — worth $44bn just 18 months earlier — to below $7bn.

"“The prisoner’s dilemma was basically: I’m fine if they don’t draw their money, and they’re fine if I don’t draw mine,” said one of the CFOs, whose company had banked around $200mn with SVB."

...

"One hedge fund short seller who detailed the bank’s risks last year warned that SVB had almost unwittingly built the foundation for what could become “the first large US bank collapse in 15 years”.

"“They went for an extra [0.4 percentage points] of yield and blew up the bank,” said the person, whose fund held a bet against SVB. “It is really sad.”"
After some thinking I realized that i don’t really want that experience again, neither do i want any sort of “enlightening” experience.

Just like lsd trips — there’s nothing valuable to it except the experience itself.
The fad of open work spaces, and the associated rationalizations, were about lower cost, not increased productivity.
There are 4,500+ commercial banks in the US with 70,000+ branches.

The idea that regional banks were going to collapse en masse because of the actions of one ineptly managed, highly unusual (in terms of customer and deposit mix) bank is ridiculous.

And trying to deliberately create a scare campaign so you can put political pressure on the FDIC to cover uninsured amounts is insidious and frankly evil.
Most VCs don’t keep a substantive amount of their dry powder on hand, just a percentage. When they need money they make a capital call to their LPs.

(At least, that’s as I understand it from the VCs that I know it)
That article says nothing about the relative risk of no oral polio administration vs. the small number of people who can get polio from it. The level of death pre oral polio vaccine vs after is clear.

The article is simply pointing out that it would be better if everyone could get the vaccine without live virus because the live virus oral version is beginning to have some unintended issues. The use of oral polio vaccines has saved huge numbers of lives but it needs to be modified now. It is not speaking against vaccines in general.
This was an extremely obvious example of when the private sector could've collaborated to solve a problem. SVB was doing a capital raise just last week. Instead the VC community colluded to accelerate the problem and is now asking for a government bailout
How did the relaxation of Dodd-Frank lead to what happened at SVB?
"Signature was one of two banks that was widely used in cryptocurrency. Like Silvergate, which collapsed on March 8th, Signature had a network that let crypto companies transfer dollars in real-time. With both crypto banks gone, it may be harder to get back into dollars."

Is that true?
If you can predict what the fed is gonna do when its gonna do it you should be incredibly rich with that information.
One thing nobody seems to be talking about is whether SVB had more assets than liabilities- presumably they did since it was a money-making enterprise, right? So even if they sell at a loss there may be more than enough to cover the liabilities.

We’ll see I guess.
What you don't pay for in tax, you will pay for in inflation, basically.

> The additional funding will be made available through the creation of a new Bank Term Funding Program (BTFP), offering loans of up to one year in length to banks, savings associations, credit unions, and other eligible depository institutions pledging U.S. Treasuries, agency debt and mortgage-backed securities, and other qualifying assets as collateral. These assets will be valued at par. The BTFP will be an additional source of liquidity against high-quality securities, eliminating an institution's need to quickly sell those securities in times of stress.

https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/pressreleases/mone...

They're basically going to allow banks to post treasuries as collateral in exchange for cash. Making this effectively a form of QE.

To understand better, banks don't hold the cash you give them. They take it and invest it in "safe" assets like treasuries and mortgage backed securities. But because rates have sky rocketed US banks are currently sitting on hundreds of billions in loses on these investments.

That's generally not a huge problem though because so long as the banks can hold these assets to maturity they'll eventually get their money back. Problems only occur when a large number of customers start demanding their deposits back ASAP. If enough customers want their deposits in a short enough window then the bank will be force sell those investments at a loss so they can return cash to customers.

To avoid this scenario the Fed are basically saying, if a bank is ever forced to realise loses, then the Fed will take those loses and "print cash" to make them whole again.

It's probably the right thing to do given the systemic risk, but this is inflationary.
Anonymous treasury official alluding that other banks might be in similar situations:

https://twitter.com/sonalibasak/status/1635059528546000897/p...
Well the notes I've seen is the CEO selling 11%, General Counsel selling 19%, CFO selling 32%, and CMO 25%, and that's just in February. I would call that notable at the very least, and assume they sold the rest in March if they had any sense.
They don't have much agency in this. Go with a typical "small business account" meant for mom and pop shops at a bigger bank and you miss out on all the advantages of a more dynamic bank like SVB. Your investors would be asking questions. Collectively agree not to create a bank run, your investors would still ask questions.

Unless you are fully bootstrapped with no major cashflow issues, there are no right answers to this.
VCs started a bank run because the bank they were using was insolvent.

That's not their fault. Would you keep your money in an insolvent bank?
If the treasury allowed a bank run to wipe out depositors, every single business would be transferring funds out of their regional bank Monday morning.
In any organization or team, there is always tension, blurry lines and negotiation about who does what, who gets the credit, etc, etc... You'd think that there would be clear lines about what exactly "developers", "product managers" and "solutions architects" (should) do, but, there is not.

I suggest you just accept it and try to get good at playing this game. For example, see if you can get the "product managers" and "solutions architects" to try to do as much of the administrative nonsense, JIRAs, "sprints", release / change approval, etc as you can.

> I feel like I could have come up with a much better approach, and ESPECIALLY if the person seems to be half my experience or age.

Ok, so why don't you do that then? Write up your better approach, give it to the "solution architect" or "product manager", and let them copy and paste it and claim it as their own. Don't worry about the credit, the supposed job roles, just focus only on the outcomes. If it is good, they will come back to you, give you better projects, and you will get your credit later.

> they basically made me do all the work

That's the problem - they are better at getting you to do the boring stuff than you are at getting them to do it.

Start playing the game, get better projects, get promoted, work your way up, etc.
Don't forget the benefits they got from white glove treatment and easy access to loans. This wasn't a one way street, there was a reason they deposited the money there.