skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Biden could reinstate them by EO, just like how Trump cut them. He hasn't though. There is a bipartisan consensus that the safety of the rail system is less important than rail company profits.
This really resonates with me. I spend a lot of time pathologizing my habits and preferences.

The thought goes: If I am not doing things the way others do, I must be mentally ill somehow and in need of a cure.
> as most people, admittedly myself included, are not willing to exercise?

I'll never get that, we only get one shot at life, even a few hours of exercise per _week_ will greatly increase your quality of life and healthy life span, there are no better medicine, nothing will give you your body back once it's too late. Some people on this forum will grind 60+ (even much more) hours per week at work, absolutely wrecking their body for "success" just to be shadow of themselves at 40. I see it everywhere online "after 40 everything hurt" "I can't sneak on my kids because my knees pop at every steps". What a sad state of affair...

Get out there, get in shape, it's life's best cheat code, everything gets better, your body evolved for that very thing for hundred millions of years, you don't even need that much dedication or time. Learn to master your body, learn about nutrition, learn self control. Run, swim, climb, lift weight, yoga, dance, try everything and keep what you enjoy

I'll always remember the day a 60+ years old climber absolutely humiliated me on the wall by effortlessly completing a climb on the first try while I couldn't even get to the half point, I was 25 and in what I though was a good shape

Not exercising is like buying a high performance car and waiting for the engine check light to do an oil change. Take care of your body, once it's gone it's gone
I hear you. Having run a venture backed startup myself, my opinion on how modern venture businesses work is...not at its highest point, to say the least.

At the same time, I really have a preference for people who didn't sign up for this kind of risk (I.e. most companies are Seed-Series B companies who understood the risk that the company might fail, but not the risk that their company had all their cash in one bank that failed), to not be laid off as a result of this.

It's a tough time.
Bitcoin solves this.

Few understand.

/s
This is confused in many ways. The only people who care about “mass surveillance” are tech insiders. It’s incoherent to be mad about fake business models and too much money being made at the same time - if startups are stupid then VCs are losing their shirts (and if we hate them, then we should help them do it even bigger and faster). If Silicon Valley is an engine of runaway wealth inequality then objectively speaking, the business model works. Making things people want generates profit, which is always and inherently evil according to communists, and enriches investors/executives/employees faster than the average person, which according to anyone who is committed to “income inequality is bad” also makes the world worse.
A mix of startups, smallish research labs (that is, smaller than Google Brain/FAIR/DeepMind), small, profitable AI companies.

I focused on smaller companies as that’s what I wanted. Bunch of larger companies were hiring though.
You and your tax dollars depend on the USD being strong, and global trust in US banks. It's a worthwhile investment for taxpayers to make depositors whole to maintain that trust.

Capitalist society runs on free markets and good regulation. We let SVB bypass good regulation here, and that's our painful learning lesson that needs to be paid for.
The system risk can be reduced when someone who’s positively exposed to rising rates trades exposure with someone who’s negatively exposed to rising rates.

For example, pension funds often benefit from rising rates because they plan on paying out future liabilities with current assets and landlords are negatively exposed to rising rates because they own a stream of income in the future. The trade of interest rate exposure between these parties helps both achieve more stability.

A real world example would be taxi drivers trading weather risk with ice cream vans. One party benefits from wet weather that stops people walking outside and the other benefits, so they can trade exposure in a way that makes the system more stable.
Let's say you're a company with well over the 250k limit on a bank account. How would you even withdraw that? Get it deposited on some other account (why trust the other bank more?), get the money in cash?
Unicode is about functionality, not some fancy unnecessary decoration. Not wanting that (without a care for an alternative) is just stupid and we really should not be talking about that at all in 2023.
"On Saturday, Home Depot co-founder Bernie Marcus insinuated that “woke” policies like the ones launched by Ersapah could have led to the SVB’s dramatic failure."

While I often find the performative aspects of woke culture teeth-grating, I think the decline of SVB had more to do with relatively large commercial to retail deposits, and an investment policy not prepared for rising interest rates, than with their policies on LGBTQ+ or any other social issue.
This is the key take away. As a modern human you obviously reason “how they hell could there NOT be vacuum?” , but in those times you had islands of knowledge (no email, mail if you are lucky) and you always reason from what you know at that point.

Just like future readers might shake their head “how did they not know warp drives work like this?”
> I hope the FDIC is able to get a substantial dividend quickly so that they can keep operating and that everyone works to keep disruption low

The FDIC has publicly said there will be an advance dividend and I don't see why it wouldn't be substantial, given that there's going to be a LOT of recovery unless SVB has big non-public problems.
Sure, so I'm saying those things are not systemically vital such that they should be exempt from the consequences of their market choices.

You're the one claiming there will be contagion here. I don't think that's the case. If a bunch of unprofitable companies with bad treasury management go under, I think the rest of the economy will be fine. Companies go out of business every day.

If you are claiming that tech is somehow special such that contagion will harm the wider economy, as was the case with mortgage-backed securities in 2008, then any taxpayer-funded bailout should be a one-time deal that goes along with enough regulation so that contagion is no longer a risk in the future.
This does not appear to be the case with the numbers coming out this morning. It’s really the government bonds that have the dramatic drop in value, relatively. The write down of the government bond assets are significantly higher than the write down of the MBS assets.
It's not a good solution to give pieces of equity and/or claims on future cash distributions, but it sounds better than forcing to liquidate everything in a rush immediately.

Another way could also be to apply when you are withdrawing the money:

1st yr: 10% withdraw fee

2nd yr: 9% withdraw fee

3rd yr: 8% withdraw fee

etc

with the rate adjusting down every year.
I am very hopeful that we continue to know more and more as time goes on. I'm very nervous that, especially in the short term, we will mostly be targeted based on agenda of the messenger. :( Worse, I'm expecting mostly fighting about the numbers and causes.
What is the significance of top 20? And SVB was far closer to the 50th bank than a top 10 bank.
USD Coin value falls after revealing $3.3B held at Silicon Valley Bank
This post also mentions "Vidrun," which features heavily in Aphyr's posts. And the interviewer in this post recognizing the situation they were in had me literally laughing out loud!
It they see themselves just as healthy as obese, why would they want not to be obese?

Sounds like enabling obesity to me.

Telling them to eat better or exercise doesn't work because it's a pain in the ass to be in a caloric deficit. They have statistically low dopamine levels (among other markers being out of wack) so they just don't have the mental fuel to deal with doing what's hard. That's what lead them to be obese in the first place, seeking comfort in food, sitting on their butt and avoiding the harshness of their reality.

Another key component are high cortisol levels (ie chronic stress due to past traumas causing depression and other mental illnesses), hindering the parasympathetic brain to switch on digestive metabolism.

You don't solve all these underling issues by saying "hey fat isn't that bad, you can still be healthy being heavy".

Like you wouldn't say to a drug addict "hey drugs aren't that bad for you" to make them feel less shitty about their situation.
In what world are you living? Being obese is and always has been frowned upon. There is a small faction of people who believe that nobody should be treated poorly for having a body that doesn't fit an ideal. You specifically say that body positivity "makes people feel good about obesity". Which, said another way, seems like you think "people should feel bad if they are fat". Why would you wish for someone to feel bad? Assuming you believe that fatness is failing caused by something wrong with a person, do you also believe that depressed people should feel bad because there is something wrong with them? Do you believe people with PTSD should feel bad because there is something wrong with them?
I understand what you’re saying, but I’d argue that what you’re describing is not the other side of the same coin, but a different set of considerations to examine when assessing the health of your social life. Not every friend will share every interest, and that’s perfectly ok. I connect more with some friends on some topics, and more with other friends on others. Their likes/dislikes are only one set of properties, and my ability to nerd out about some specific thing is limited to the friends who share that deep interest.

The message I took from the writing wasn’t “like everything indiscriminately”, but closer to “stop making hating stuff a part of your identity”. The difference is subtle but critically important.

Among the people I know who have wide ranging interests, that range is not synonymous with a lack of discernment, but rather a lack of inexplicable and unnecessary hatred/dislike.

> It feels to me that there's a kind of inauthenticity to the author's approach, and it's possible to perceive that inauthenticity in others.

I’m curious why you feel this way? I didn’t take this from the writing at all, and writing is often the least reliable way to detect a lack of authenticity.

I mean this with all respect/love, but we often find what we look for, and if that’s your default mode, such findings can become pervasive and color all experience.

> Fake enthusiasm can be as bad as or worse than lack of enthusiasm.

From the perspective of whom? For the person who lacks enthusiasm, faking it for a time can be the key to unlocking the real thing. Unlocking the real thing can lead to a much better life.

It seems the only situation where it could be worse, would be for observers who find the concept distasteful. But now we’re back to “maybe don’t get so invested in disliking things”, and ultimately we’re each responsible for our own reactions.
Pretty impressive to be able to create such a script when you haven't programmed before.

I used to freelance when I learnt to code in college and I wrote many such small automation scripts for quite a few people. Looks like the AI is already taking away some jobs ;)
What is the control group for your proposed experiment and how can I join it?
Salary was still 2x FAANG comp (and roughly equal to my FAANG TC). So I’m fine taking the equity bet under those circumstances. I agree with you though. One company valued their equity at 3x (!!) what it was worth in October.
Cannot cut something back if the brakes were never mass produced.
This is an electron microscopy based study, not light microscopy (i.e. SPIM or open-spim). Or did you mean something else?
Was there actual evidence that Trump's changes had any affect on the derailments? From what I heard they had no effect. And last I checked , Biden has been president for 2 years. If they were vitally important, wouldn't the transportation dept worked to add them back?
Does the bodybuilder has 30 BMI cause of muscle weight?
> SVB successfully lobbied to be exempt from both

Ow the irony
yeah, the first paragraph says, "will see their home screen get a substantial makeover that founder Daniel Ek says will see the platform "come alive" with different content - from videos to audiobooks."

It's not just a product manager driving this.
Isn't a product like this tied to the viability of the job market, as in when the job market has a downturn your potential customers are less include to buy?
Most likely Brex would structure the bridge loan so that they would be a secured creditor due to having a charge(?)/lien(?) over the rights of the client's SVB deposits.

Not sure how this works out in practice, IANAL, etc.
MBS are much safer today than pre GSE (government sponsored entities). SVB failed to hedge their assets.

The MBS will still be worth their face value at maturity.
> The purpose of copyright is to allow Creators to create works and then make a living from them without others making copies and reselling them for their own profit.

Well, actually the stated purpose, in the US and many other places, is to do that as an instrumental subgoal. The underlying main goal is to encourage people to create and publish works, because those works existing is seen as good for the public.

If you say copyright should be extended to ML models for that reason (because it definitely doesn't cover them now), then that amounts to saying that public policy should be to encourage there being more of the models.

From what we've seen of how they're used and can be used, I'd say that it's not exactly obvious that creating more is a good policy to pursue.

> For physical goods you don’t need anything special to ensure widgets aren’t resold infinitely, because resale of one leaves the seller without the item,

Traditionally an argument against copyright...

> With non-physical goods (i.e. ideas), you can’t remove them from someone’s mind after they’ve consumed them, so that’s where fair use and other balancing principles come in.

Um, no. That sort of consideration might affect the definition people use for derivative works, but it's not the point behind things like fair use, and it had basically no role in the development of the concept. Fair use, like most limitations on copyright, is about the boundaries of what it's appropriate to let somebody control, and how tightly they should be allowed to control it, for whatever random reason. In the US, part of fair use is about trying to keep copyright law from stomping on freedom of speech. That's where all the stuff about transformative use and parody come from.

A lot of the rest of fair use is about what rights you as a copyright holder should yield when you sell somebody a copy of a work. There've been plenty of fair use controversies about directly photocopying pages directly out of books. And the result was that such direct copying often can be fair use.

But nobody, ever, has brought up the question of having to forget what you know in relation to fair use. That's more like the question of what constitutes a derivative work, but even there I don't think it's ever been a major argument.

Also, please stop Capitalizing Random Words like "Creator". We're not talking about gods here. We do not capitalize common nouns in English, and the ONLY place you're breaking that rule is for that specific word.
None of that will do anything, beyond, at best, chipping at some of the most egregious examples. We are a capitalist system. Economics and politics are inseparable, and the capitalist class has the power.
From the perspective of the bank this isn’t a black swan event, from the perspective of a smaller farmer or winery it is certainly a black swan event.
> They just made a huge return on a short play that most people never saw coming.

Debatable. The amount is not disclosed. Also just in this HN thread there were some talk about how even if someone saw it coming taking the actual position was a bit risky (because borrowing the stock in a high-interest rate env can easily lead to closing the position too soon).

> This establishes who the short seller is, when the interview is taking place, and makes clear that short seller has come to his position after heavy review of SVB's finances over the course of months.

That sentence is too evocative of fluff. (To me. And I'm guessing to other HN commenters too.)

Its style does not match the subject matter, nor the rest of the article. It's too eloquent, too visual, yet imprecise. Were the doors really closed? What does that even mean to today's "terminally online" audience, who read these articles? What's the name of the regulator? Walking through, closely eyeballing for months ... yet in the next paragraphs they mention "last two years". Okay, sure, it's not a "gotcha" or some huge logical contradiction, but it's just unexplained to me as a reader.

All in all, I don't like the pacing, the format, the style, the terrible one sentence paragraphs of this article.

> The bank effectively touches every part of the private markets.

Yeah, but that's like saying buying a lot of SP500 touches every part of public markets. Yes, SVB was big, 209B big, but when the Vision fund is 150B, and VC has more than 2T, and PE has more than 4T assets under management, I'm not sure what to think of this.

To me this article, while has some interesting factoids, comes off as a strange almost personal account of the writer's "oh no one knows what will happen now" emotionally charged state. (Which is okay for a blog, but underwhelming for HN front page.)
Which in turn would not be a problem if the amount of data issued didn’t swamp at destroy the market for debt already on the books…
This line of thinking infuriates me. As an individual, I risk manage my deposits by making sure I remain under federal insurance limits by spreading my investments among multiple institutions (the FDIC limit isn't that relevant to me but the $500k SIPC limit is). Yet somehow "sophisticated" VCs aren't able to tell their partner companies how to manage the millions they hand them? There are straightforward, simple ways to increase insurance limits (primarily by services that automatically distribute deposits among multiple banks, like MaxSafe and IntraFi). The was just fundamentally poor asset management by VCs who got on the "well, everyone else uses SVB you should too" bandwagon.
I was referring to capitalism as in "free enterprise" (not as in "anything that happens in a mostly capitalist society"). Many of Marx' central theories were shown to be incorrect (e.g. labor theory of value) and personally, I don't buy the theory of class struggle (it is probably not even a falsifiable theory).
I, and others, would never keep more than $250k in a bank account even before this SVB debacle. There are products made to manage this risk. For example, Mercury gives you up to $1M of insurance by sweeping to four different banks on the back end without you having to lift a finger. You can also sweep excess into money market funds.

I do have sympathy for 20-something founders who were too young and unaware of these risks, and focused on other aspects of their business, but this is not a “hindsight only” kind of thing.
Pentagon looking to make sure SpaceX doesn’t abandon them in war
You might want to tune the sampler. For example, set it to a lower temperature. Also, the 4bit RTN quantisation seems to be messing up the model. Perhaps, the GPTQ quantisation will be much better.
drag () {
dragon --and-exit --on-top "$@"
}

I write a lot of extremely simple but handy shell functions.

This one lets me drag/and drop things out of a terminal session (kind of) into applications with https://github.com/mwh/dragon and i use it way too often!
Buy WF stock?
Are bodybuilders really healthy though? I'm sure it's healthier than being obese but the kind of pressure they put on their body, I wonder if that doesn't cause problems. Like with most things done in extreme amounts of course. Many top athletes also have major issues later in life.

And that's not even mentioning the hormones..
This is a really neat trick! I might even use it in production one day.

But it's still unintuitive enough that it should only be used in production with a reference to this article.
It's all about the volume. I'm not listening at a high volume since the brown noise does a great job of blocking out all sounds. It's actually quite soothing, kind of like a waterfall.

Discussion about it from a few months back, from a NYT article. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32998960

I'm not worried.
Capitalism on the way up, socialism on the way down
Before you draw conclusions from the headline, please look at the graph from the linked paper [1]. Pay attention to the size of the error bars. It looks like there is an effect, but it's not the huge and obvious realisation that the article claims.

I do think that body composition (size/fat/muscle mass) has an effect on your health, but the variance within groups is still huge! There are so many other things in your life that can affect your health, that also have a huge effect size.

So even if you are overweight or obese, and you can't lose weight, it doesn't mean that you can't improve your health. Eating healthy, making sure to get enough fresh air, limiting alcohol and nicotine use, taking care of your mental health and stress level are all going to benefit your health, even if they don't make you lose weight.

The same thing goes if you have a healthy weight and lots of muscle mass: Your body composition is not a free pass to smoke, get drunk every weekend, and eat burgers every day.

[1]: https://assets.realclear.com/images/44/446325_5_.png
> There are many situations where a bank is literally solvent, but cannot survive the liquidity crunch of a bank run.

That simply isn't true.

One of the functions of the Fed is to lend money in situations like that.

If the bank has illiquid assets they can borrow whatever they need.
My #1 hack is not having low-quality, high-sugar snacks in my house. Instead of sugared soda I have flavored soda water (Fresca, specifically) and sugar-free cola. When I do indulge in snacks I don't buy bulk, I buy the small packages, even though they're more expensive per ounce. In fact, that they're more expensive is a plus.

If I have to go way out of the way to binge on junk I'm probably not going to do it.
Is this possible for all countries?

Surely the lowest gdp (maybe per capita) country in the world that has pension funds should be eligible to invest these funds outside of the country.

A priori, without knowing anything about world economies, we shouldn't expect every country with pensions to even have local possibilities of investment. There's possibly a country where every single tax payer works remotely, or in local administration.
Banking isn't intended to be a risk, though. That's literally the point of FDIC insurance.

Idk why I'm even bothering making an argument when your opening argument is ad hominem.
Basically never use en dashes or em dashes because they are no longer colloquial.
have you read the financials of the banks you bank with? have you read the source code of every app/other software that you use?

Interesting new world folks are suggesting here, where depositors can't trust the highly regulated banks they bank with.
I don't see why not. Pico has a few dedicated UART pins. Bluetooth support is pretty new, though.
> You're the one claiming there will be contagion here.

In the sense that I never said that, sure.

The only thing I claimed, even implicitly, is firing a bunch of people because their employer's cash disappeared would be bad.