skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I worked for a long/short fund and am personally (and vocally[1]) short some names. I have nothing against short selling, it’s an important function of healthy markets.

To give you an example of what I'm worried about, our accountant cautioned all of their clients yesterday about keeping funds with another bank that has had rumors circulating about it, saying that regardless the truth of the rumors, the fact that they are circulating could cause a run. This is the right thing for them to do; their fiduciary duty is to us and not to the stability of the market, but in aggregate, it's easy to imagine how everyone's accountant sending the same message at the same time could be exploited by someone who wants to destroy a small bank.

[1] https://paulbutler.org/2022/the-problem-with-bitcoin-miners/
This is on the CFO and CEO to evaluate counter party risk.

If the founders had put all their money in FTX because they figured they could get a better FTX checking account than SVB was offering, nobody would bat an eye at their failure.
100% agree, taking huge unhedged duration risk and then loading up on negatively convex MBS again unhedged is so crazy.
This whole incident should disabuse anyone from believing that VC money is “smart money”.
If you're spending $500k a month on payroll it doesn't make sense to do that.
No one is asking anyone to feel sorry for them. They got punched in the nose, and they just don't want to be punched in the nose again.
I am not sure why you think the 250k limit is the end of the road in what is an extremely complex process. The 250k is so that depositors can be paid out quickly while the rest of the process gets going, which could take months or years.

In SVBs case the 250k payouts will only account for 5% of the deposits. SVBs assets, while hampered, are still substantial. What do you propose is done with those assets?
Just click the link, that's exactly who the article is about. In those specific cases they aren't moving on to Uber and Lyft because they're dead.

They didn't have enough capital for the medallions in hand of course, these were mostly immigrant strivers who worked and toiled and deeply tapped their entire network of friends and family for down payments and were heavily leveraged for the rest.

Then Silicon Valley VC's purposefully made it impossible for them to compete using a massive wash of cheap capital.

What's that you say? The free market is tough, and they should have been able to adequately understand the risks? What can you do if they put their money into something and it didn't pan out right? The game has rules right? No take backs.

Oh.
Good overview of what that sort of thing would take and what was known and unknown: https://www.fhi.ox.ac.uk/brain-emulation-roadmap-report.pdf

(2008. Of course there's been related work since, but I don't know of any attempt to review all the newer stuff together.)
Not going to happen. Supreme court has ruled depositors as investors. The pecking order after 250K is just slightly better than unsecured loan and shareholders. Who would have though Lehmans 2.0 replay itself again.
I say as a person who’s been laid off twice and worked for a company that went bankrupt — why is that my problem?

Why should you get my money?

(In the case of the company I worked for which went bankrupt — we were a fintech startup with a truly innovative and fantastic product. Our management made three bad decisions which led to our demise. Two were technical and would have been recoverable, the last was a strategic move which ultimately proved disastrous.)
It's one reason I completely reject customization of editors in a Unix environment and one of the reasons I quit emacs for vi.

If you're logging into some strange Unix machine you might not have emacs and you might not have permission to install it or the machine might be screwed up enough that you can't or don't want to install anything before working with an editor so if using vi is routine you are more comfortable.
I wasn't talking about you when I was saying that some people are blaming depositors. Some other commenters are really angry at the VCs that participated in the run. Their anger is understandable, but misplaced in this case IMO.

> What other model leads to instant death, damage to their entire customer base, and collateral damage to the broader system, when a certain number of customers decide to go elsewhere?

None of these things happened because some customers decided to go elsewhere. They were going to happen anyway. SVB was in really terrible shape and was already in the process of collapsing.
also use mercury for the same reason. they are a tech company that provides a good interface to baking services at a wholesale price, which is very different than trying to be a bank. for actual banking i see know reason to use anyone other than jpm chase.
It’s not unimaginable that he managed to delay the bad news from coming for a couple of days before the sale went through though.
You are correct. And Meta isn’t paying a 40% premium due to that 8 acres, it’s functionally no worse than any other company I’ve been in with an open-office plan. Longer lines of sight but somehow less noisy due to a lower density and a strong culture of moving collaborations to a more private space. I understand people hate open offices, but this article calling out Meta in particular doesn’t pass the smell test.
Going by stock market losses, some of these charts, and Twitter sentiment, looks like SBNY, WAL, and FRC are next on the chopping block for bank runs.
What I find most disingenuous in this whole saga is the conflating of small business payroll depositors with all depositors. Circle & USDC rely on the interest rate earned on the stablecoin deposits for their business and SVB was providing that with poor risk management. With a $3B deposit (or more since they likely moved money out and partially caused the collapse), Circle should have been doing additional risk management beyond SVB, not just collecting interest. Now taxpayers are supposed to cover that failure?
If we are judging Stanford by the kind and quality of its graduate effluent, it’s clear that the institution should be red-tagged immediately. Unfortunately as a society we have no collective defenses against toxic private organizations.
You can continue to stick to your 90s hobbyist and research circles of the internet if you want. They haven't gone anywhere.

The fact that billions more are online and doing their own thing now is not a mistake.
The part you quoted explicitly says "but are not Irish or British citizens".
OpenChatKit: Open-source, instruction-tuned, 20B parameter language model
Thanks followed both of be those. Looks like #FRB might be next
Yes, you can buy it. It's very common at wholesale banking levels (credit default swaps are extremely commonly used to cover counterparty risk). Also credit insurance is available to anyone.

However, the simple option here is to put money into short term govt bonds, there are ETFs like SGOV that make this extremely easy.

Even more ridiculous is that you are getting 4-5% yield on them.

This is what is so crazy about this entire saga - people should not be parking millions upon millions at a bank earning no interest when you could be getting 4-5%+ - regardless of solvency issues.

It is frightening to me people don't seem to understand this. It's absolutely basic money management. It would be more understandable when interest rates were basically 0 and you wouldn't get any yields from bonds. But that isn't the case and hasn't been the case for a long time now.

Now clearly SVB were offering perks for doing this, but say you had $100m parked there, are those perks really worth $5m/year? People should have been asking that. It's a whole team of engineers paid for!

And really offering personal perks to founders contingent on company money doesn't sit completely right with me, unless the founder owns 100% of the equity which most do not. It's one thing offering perks as goodwill but putting convents etc on company money for personal perks is suspect to me.
I'm challenging the claim that Brave is somehow better, when in fact it's a step back.

> Do you apply these same standards to all browsers and fiercely challenge them like Brave, let's say... Firefox?

Firefox doesn't claim that they're trying to address the problem of ads on the internet, so no, I don't challenge Firefox's false claims. See how that works?
Ask HN: Difficult to Improve Life
So, whenever I read “tricks/hacks/habits that made your life better”, the usual suggestions appear:

- don’t drink alcohol (or drink less)

- don’t smoke/quit drugs

- do regular sports

- sleep good enough

- engage in social interactions

But I’ve been doing that all my life! It’s not that I have a bad life, it’s not amazing either… but there’s always the “how can I make it a bit better”. The regular recommendations don’t apply, so I find it harder to make my life better.
That would effectively be no different than a bailout.
I've stayed in hotel rooms that were on a light well. Yes, you pretty much might as well not have a window. It's actually pretty common, especially on lower floors, for hotel rooms to be directly facing some other building and for many rooms not to have much of a view or natural light.
I mean literally nobody is a libertarian by the dictionary definition, there aren't any on the planet. It's just a word people use to describe a value system where governments only help people like them and everyone else gets fucked.

They sure talked a good game though.
It seems to be only a question whether they will receive 80-90% or the full 100% though.
FDIC will unfreeze a non trivial amount of depositors funds by Wed or Thursday. They sold a lot of assets Friday. I’m personally not predicting huge job losses. There are lots of war chest sized balances in SVB that it doesn’t matter if they take longer to get made whole. So if they effectively unfreeze say two million per account or 45% whichever is larger on Wed/Thur and then balance in a couple of months I think Job losses will be minimal.
I've had the same thing happen after an extended period of emulating an Amiga in an interlaced screen mode. After exiting the emulator, there was still similar flickering and mild image retention, that also faded after a few minutes.

My guess is that it's down to the relationship between the specific interlacing used by the panel, if any (lagom.nl has inversion/pixelwalk tests to determine which type a monitor uses), compared to the 60Hz flickering. Something about the two together induces image retention far sooner than the average content, albeit image retention that also fades much quicker.
Having multiple options for how to offset parenthetical asides, far from being redundant (or even confusing), offers us—as writers and readers—more opportunities to express the tonal variations (or nuances) that we would – in spoken language – communicate through our voice and body language; moreover it lets us vary the visual, aesthetic quality of our prose – which is as much a part of the experience of reading as comprehension is.
How to Improve Performance in Git
>My first suggestion would be as T-Bills. [...], and I'm still not sure why it was not standard practice.

Corporations have always split their cash into cash and "almost-cash-equivalent" liquid assets (like Treasury Bills). E.g. one can read any random 10-k corporate filing and there will be a line item for short term assets like "T-bills" because companies like to earn interest on their excess cash. The corporate treasurer is responsible for managing that mix.

But a company still needs working cash in the bank account for payroll and to pay vendors. The smaller startups may have not have enough excess cash to bother with splitting some of it into T-bills.
People asking for money back from Madoff were investors, which is completely different from depositors asking for their deposits back.
it is just a subtle reminder of how massively superior they are to all of their competition
what’s the point of needing to hedge if you let the bonds expire and get the payment. You wouldn’t lose anything right?
Possibly. I'm just comparing the experiences I had.
> worried about setting a precedent that the right thing to do is head to the exits the moment rumors start to circulate

I’m surprised this is news so recently after a financial crisis. When the CEO of the bank starts pleading for deposits to stay, you wire out.
That's just an example
Hey this looks really cool! Love the curses interface. I’ll check this out
Of course demonizing short sellers is nonsense.

But if your venture relies on excessively inflated stock values to harvest the capital you want/need, then you really don't want short sellers exposing that discrepancy.

So, yes, anyone in that position demonizing short sellers should be pretty much ignored (or taken as a sign that this is a good short oppo).

That said, short sellers trying to manipulate the market or stocks can actually do real damage that would not otherwise occur. I see strong indications that Peter Theil is in this category. It looks very much like he made first significant public "Pull Your Money Out!" calls; if he was short SIVB at the time (or had other positions or situations that would gain from SVB's failure), that's very suspicious.
Like how the safest place to stand is where lightning just struck.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independence_(probability_theo...
Tech companies used to have them. Most engineers at Sun were in offices in the 90s
That's actually quite concerning, if you read between the lines.

What they're saying is: "JPM is just as insolvent as SIVB. The only difference is that JPM's customers are less likely to withdraw their funds."
Aren't the execs in this case losing the vast, vast, vast majority of the money they old in the bank? I haven't seen anything that makes it seem like they're getting out of this unharmed, and especially not at anyone else's expense.

I also don't know how refusing to make depositors whole would disincentivize bas behavior by execs, anyway? Seems like two unrelated issues.
I assumed the parent was referring to a government sponsored plan to make SVB depositors whole beyond ordinary FDIC receivership.
Well, I’d recommend following me!
https://youtube.com/@atomic14
If they manage to somehow talk another bank into buying what’s left of SVB it might be the full 100%.

It’s not yet clear that won’t happen.
Were there a higher percentage of Israeli startups than startups from other nationalities? I'm not sure I see the point of this submission vs the sea of other SVB threads on here over the last few days.
> If you’re on a Mac, all you have to do is right click a QR verification image

Thank you. I have no idea how the process works. I've never used TOTP, never seen people use it, and not seen documentation of how it works, much less works with GitHub.

> if you really cared that much about maintaining your access to a free product

The question was more if this would mean the end of my using GitHub. There is one FOSS project that I contribute to there. Otherwise I use paid Mercurial hosting on Sourcehut, which does not require TOTP. (At least not yet.)

> If you have privacy concerns

I don't think I have the self-control to use a mobile device in moderation. I do not want to be like the large number of people I see who go around with their phone in their face. I quit Facebook, and soft drinks, for similar reasons - some things I cannot self-moderate.

> So are you asking a genuine question or are you being a contrarian for the sake of it?

I think it's more that change, after decades of doing things a certain way seemingly without problems, upsets me, so I'm looking for hand-holding.
The alternative take would be that Cuban knows exactly how it works but sees a chance to push for what's essentially a federal startup subsidy because his fanboys don't know.
One distinction that I had missed for a long time is that the en-dash is used instead of the hyphen to connect words in the “and” sense, such as “read–eval–print loop” or “Myers–Briggs personality type”. I find that the en-dash makes it a bit more clear that the words are sort of “on equal footing” and it’s not one word modifying the other one.
US here. Once had a pharmacist not fill a script for Vyvanse because my doctor's instructions were "take half tablet daily as needed". These were chewables with perforation marks on them, but apparently it didn't explicitly say on the Vyvanse instructions that you could split them or not.

In the US, when purchasing Vyvanse with cash (most insurance won't cover it), the price is dictated by number of pills, NOT by the dosage of those pills. So, it is half the cost to get 15 pills that you take a half of daily versus a standard 30 day supply.

I think the 30 day supply was somewhere in the realm of $400 by the way.

Vyvanse patent expired last month, so hopefully a generic product comes out soon!
Open spaces allow easier monitoring and easier allocation (hot seats). This cubicle wont last long before they rediscover the need of management which is easier management (easy monitor+easy allocation). I give it 3 years at most.
whoops, I can’t type. That’s (1+rate)*(-time to maturity) in the exponent. It’s exponential but not doubly exponential.
SVB just went bankrupt pursuing that strategy...

That being said, I don't think it's possible for all banks to hedge interest rate risk. The risk, to the system as a whole, doesn't go away just because it's transferred to someone else.
All the outrage here is pretty weird considering the USA, Canada and the EU all have policies like this already
All the model's weights are just a compressed representation of data it was trained on

That's not remotely accurate. I'd argue it's not even understood what the weights are or how they relate to the training data, and what is understood is not at all trivial.
I use task warrior in my daily flow pretty often. But I like the tree style view of tasks. This seems pretty intuitive as well.
For small changes, lots!
It’s not about the bank it’s about the depositors. The bank is still going to zero.

It’s a valid Q how saving depositors impacts CFO risk analysis. Hopefully no matter what the outcome this scares everyone into diversification.
Murderous Mexican Drug Cartels Are Thriving on Elon Musk’s Twitter
Yes they buy equity but do they always pay upfront? I would imagine that they have some contracts structured in a way that allows them to pay in rates based on performance etc. Also, what if some vc signed contract last week with payment due this week and they can't pay. I dont expect a lot of cases like that but i suspect few did.
It’s also very likely to be hypocritical: how many topics on HN are tuned towards a very specific kind of focus/nerdom? And what’s the point of commenting “aha, good for me that I don’t care aboutt this!…?

I guess the difference here is that someone’s boss might complain that they should follow this article, since we all write stuff from time to time.
Because one wants to have private in person communication. In my experience cubical and closed door office environments maximize communication and collaboration while open concept reduce it.

Closed doors are like therapist room - you get to the meaning of topics fast. They allow conflict resolution and discussion.

Open concept are like libraries, everyone is silently trying to to disturb each other working. Full of visual and audible distractions.

WFH remote meeting have the lowest form of communication bandwidth. It's hard to arbitrage interactions with no visual cues, invites multi-tasking during meetings, and encourages disengagement.
I would strongly assume that require not only the cooperation of more than just him but also many people including those who had no real gain for doing that.

Even if both the CEO and CFO conspired to hide this, more than just them would know about the trouble and them conspiring to do this. Those individuals would now have no reason not to whisteblow immediately.

I find conspiracies, especially non-governmental, about large organizations incredibly hard to believe because of how difficult they would be to pull off.
> it is reasonable to clawback any money withdrawn outside what could be considered normal operations in past week or fortnight

There is no legal basis for this.
Its too much to expect from VCs, they are each trying to maximize their gain. Creating consensus and cooperation is very hard, especially in bad times. It's exactly why governments exist, In some cases a web of self interested parties will produce horrible results and central authority can be more effective.
Here's one video: https://twitter.com/chrisgeidner/status/1634791941350064128?...

This is going to be a super unpopular take so feel free to let me have it (I won't hold it against you):

I don't know why anyone would expect a bunch of Stanford students to be bowled over by some appointed midwit judge.

Your typical Stanford student, assuming they're not a legacy, is extremely hard-working and bright. Top of their class. Whereas your typical judge is a mediocre lawyer who happened to be a known commodity among oily politicians. The idea that we sneer at our best college students but celebrate mediocre jurists isn't reflective of a meritocratic society.
Because the bank has more than enough assets to payback at least 70-80%. Are you suggesting that money should be appropriated by someone just to teach them a lesson?
I do see a lot of billboard ads on the road.
It still sounds like you're sacrificing your personal life for the sake of a commute. Good commute? Crap living situation. Good living situation? Crappy commute. Or I could just work from home and have a good living situation and no commute.
Yep, the politics of this are terrible as well. Tech leaders like Sacks have spent years trolling people and making themselves as odious as possible and now they're crying for a bailout, while still being as odious as possible and blaming the government for this.

But apart from the politics, even something as simple as Garry Tan calling for the government to guarantee all deposits is simply calling for the government to break its own laws.

https://twitter.com/garrytan/status/1634630941334470656?cxt=...
US Treasury Bonds are one of the safest investment vehicles, IF you match the interest and maturity to your liabilities. You cannot go and buy bonds that will mature and give you 1% per annum in 10 years when you have a debtor awaiting payment in 90 days. That's the huge risk mismanagement SVB did.

Having said that, I don't think startups will suffer big time - but they were the ones also who created the bankrun fueled by VC panic. However mismanaged SVB was, given enough time they had enough resources to turn this around.
what pizza'd you get
I'm sad to hear that, but by all accounts you should be able to receive your salary on Monday, when at least $250k should become available to your employer (though hopefully significantly more).
The internet used to be good because there were few people. it's bad right now because too many people are on the internet. I don't think changing internet ads will fix the internet.
The highs are higher, but the lows are much lower too. I wish there were a way to preserve the best of both.
Interest rate swaps maybe. Svb would be on the side that is getting a floating rate payment, while they pay a fixed one to the other side, so when the rates increase it would offset the loss in bond price. Thing is I’m not sure if they need to hedge if the bonds are for 1 year because they will get the money back anyways