skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
A stern talking to about using their infinite money wisely, and not charging customers for the convenience. Perhaps a finger wag about doubling overdrafts to pay for their infinite money. A tsk for tripling monthly payments for student checking accounts.
It's not a bailout. Silicon Valley Bank will cease operating, the shareholders get zero, anyone who loaned them money likely gets zero, the executives have been fired, the employees will all be laid off within two months.

The point of this action is to ensure that Silicon Valley Bank's customers, however, will not be harmed by doing business with a regulated major bank.
See https://www.npr.org/2009/03/26/102384657/anatomy-of-a-bank-t... for some more info on how efficiently the FDIC works.
Using kids to plug (certain) labour gaps should be permitted but onorously expensive, kids need to cost twice/thrice as much to employ. Most of extra pay beyond minimum wage should be locked away and made available after they turn 18.
Does this statement reflect any shift in policy?

Haven’t depositors always been first on the list to get paid, even their uninsured deposits? I don’t know if charging a special assessment to member banks is standard operating procedure, but that doesn’t sound like government intervention. It just sounds like reasonable operation of the FDIC.
This round of bank failures was special because the debt held by these banks lost value because there is better stuff on the market, not because there was anything intrinsically uncollectable about the original debt. In fact, the debt probably is pretty similar to stuff held by everyone else in this ecosystem. This provides flexibility to meet the urgency of the situation, and FDIC, Fed, Treasury are simply saying "we know what the stuff is worth and there is enough money in the pot to make all depositors hole." "No more bank runs at this time please."
> The Karman line has nothing to do with lift, it's just an arbitrary, round number.

I think you got this upside-down. The Kármán line is named after an engineer called Theodore von Kármán who studied the problem of how high aeronautical flight is possible theoretically. That has everything to do with lift, and speed an orbiting body needs to stay in orbit. That is the Kármán line.

Then yes of course organisations need clear and bright lines for things like "when do we give someone an astronaut badge?" For that different organisations come up with nice round threshold numbers. And those numbers have nothing to do with lift. But those numbers are not the Kármán line. They are just convenient approximations of it for administrative purposes.

It's like if a country's tax authority declares that for tax purposes you shall calculate the area of a circle using the first 5 digits of PI. That doesn't mean that suddenly the PI become not a transcendental number. It is just an approximation for practical reasons.
And how much stock he has left that he didn’t sell, and lost entirely a few days later? Is this really the best argument for the “privatize the profits” narrative, that someone picked up a few pennies from in front of $6B steamroller?
Let's just not make this a habit!
awesome! author here. I was at the same place and was looking with others and we found this in a corner of the internet. now it's on two corners of the internet, hopefully it will be easier for others to find.

you have made my day, knowing it helped at least one person!
Best future proof might be to wait two months and get an M2 Mac Pro.
You’re saying SVB should’ve been designated “too big to fail?”
"Cloud gaming is the next big thing." --Links to Stadia shutdown notice

OP, I appreciated that bit
https://archive.is/QkUtM
But it’s not other banks - it’s customers of other banks.
This is awesome, how did you build it? Using something like marqo.ai?
Hahahah!
It's indirect and, I think, unintentional on the VC's part. The VC required closing via wire to a SVB account, and that a SVB deposit account be maintained to assist in further financing rounds, bridge loans, and other things. Separately, SVB required an exclusive depositing relationship when signing up with them for commercial bank services. It's the SVB side of this that I have issue with, really. No fault of the VC that they wanted a shared banking relationship, but that bank should not have been allowed to prohibit us from using other banks for deposit services.

TL;DR: If we went with that VC for the Series A, they wanted us to be a SVB customer, and SVB demanded exclusivity.
Not really... the system should protect depositors. Frankly I think there shouldnt be a deposit insurance limit or it should be much higher. Depositing cash in a bank should be safe for everyone.

SVB's executives and shareholders were wiped out. They are the ones with a duty to manage the bank so it is only right they take the hit.
Replace "an agressor" with "the USA" and that pretty much sums up history.
They didn't say as much, but that was my read.
As others have pointed out there are of course options: multiple accounts, buying safe bonds, etc. But those are all pretty unrealistic for most small businesses. Startups with 3 or 4 people aren't going to spend a lot of time learning all the ins and outs and risks of the options available.
EXACTLY! This will be born by the taxpayer. What were all the VCs f*cking thinking concentrating all their portfolio companies in one financial institution? This was terrible decision making on their part (and by the portfolio companies). Why does this all of a sudden become a taxpayer liability? Because All-In bros got on Twitter and started spamming people?
That just moves the source of risk to the company selling you that insurance. If they go under as well, then that insurance is worthless.
I've been playing around with the 30B version all day. The biggest improvement I've seen have come from changing the way I prompt (strike a more in medias res style, the model really likes continuing and gets confused if you give it a blank slate), and implementing top_k sampling (also discard the top_p=0 nonsense, you want top_p>1.0 to turn it off). It's important to note that the llama.cpp project does NOT implement top_k, even if you set that commandline parameter.
Who are you trying to disincentivize? How would it dissuade the bank's management if depositors took a haircut? What behavior do you think punishing depositors would prevent? Do you think depositors should hire an accountant and economist to review their bank's balance sheet every quarter?
Maybe banks shouldn't be able to place bets with depositor funds.
> The bankruptcy was only made public Friday, but they've been working on it for longer than that.

Not much longer. It's only Thursday's run that tipped SVB into insolvency.
This is going to put every regional bank on the map for short sellers as equity holders are being wiped out in these cases without depositors being affected. Why would anyone invest in any regional bank with the risk of a equity wipeout day to day?
How do we know this is a "shameful misrepresentation" until we see how it pans out?
Yeah, if there’s too much cash sloshing around then this idea helps because the banks don’t need to find places to put all their deposits.

What happens normally though is that everyone banks at the Fed and the banks don’t have any deposits and so loans freeze up, which is bad.
> The depositors did nothing here but put their own money in a bank account?

I'm guessing the mistake parent is implying to is that they put more than what was insured, knowing very well the risk that if the bank fail, they might only get back 250K USD, as it's only insured up to that.

Well, in theory at least. In practice it seems the insurance was actually a unspecified "unlimited" amount, as they'll get all their funds back now.
I am also confused about where the money is coming from to cover SVB’s losses, if not from the taxpayer.
Since you mentioned City nerd I would add City Beautiful and Not Just Bikes
Apparently they had no Chief Risk Officer for much of the last year: https://fortune.com/2023/03/10/silicon-valley-bank-chief-ris...
It isn't that punctuation doesn't matter; however, non phoneme based typographical elements are really hard to defend. Worse, characters that are not present on the vast majority of input mechanisms? Really? This is the line people are going to draw in the hopes of not dying?
Silicon Valley Bank Proxy Shows Board’s Yearlong Risk Panic
The fed action is the right call unless you want to go back to the 1800s when bank failures were routine and caused cyclical shocks.
No, I'm referring to you! I'm the type of guy who can feel full off of 7 cashews, your infrequent and incomplete remarks are similar to those cashews.
> One of the theories on why MOC had to be ganked

What?
Startups are risky. The money invested should be considered a risk. For all the people who would lose their job from this collapse, it's just as sad as the mass layoffs in the tech sector over the last few months. None of the employees of these companies have lost their personal wealth unless they also banked >250k there. The only big losers are the investors putting money into this already risky sector. It's not a sector that needs government backed bailouts. If you want to support the uber rich in these scenarios, just raise the backed insurance to 100% and let the government backed risk to be absolute. This shell game of "were not covering rich people but will will if anything bad happens" is simply disingenuous.
Couldn’t the Fed just offer retail loans at the Federal Reserver rate, with maybe some kind of premium if inflation is high, or discount if inflation is low? What am I missing? Why do we need all these banks, some of which catastrophically explode every decade or so?
Well, it has everything "in person" has except physical precense.

Which, unless the meeting is about hanky panky or massage or something, should be just as good for the purposes of technical discussion...
Yeah as long as the banks hold actually valuable things- SVB had treasury bonds- no reason the federal government can’t treat those as cash. I mean it’s their own issued assets!
Fed Rolls Out Emergency Measures to Prevent Banking Crisis After SVB Collapse
Microsoft Edge Can Compete with Apple’s Lockdown Mode for Disabling JIT
> whenever there's a large payout event exceeding normal reserves the fund recoups the money by assessing member banks.

The point you are missing is that would be to pay the required excess to cover the 250K per depositor, but this is a bailout of all depositors money.
There is no mechanism for awareness with LLMs, though.

Advances on probabilistic search will have equal facility with hallucination as with the real.

Regardless of whether Chomsky's article "proves" your negative, there is plenty of evidence that LLMs are not even as good as dogs and cats at forming a theory of the world around them. That we might draw a conclusion that dogs, cats, and people work differently from LLMs seems more like common sense.
Creating = building with blocks, interacting, using imagination, creating.

Consuming = passive watching and input only. Watching someone play video games is consuming.
I think there was an air of "hey, it's been ten years since 2008, the system is working; we can relax Dodd-Frank a little bit."

After March 2023, the message should be an unequivocal "no, not even a little bit."
Buy safe, highly liquid securities like t-bills, commercial paper, money market funds etc.
So depositors at banks taking on big risks get elevated interest rates or other perks for years, and when the shit hits the fan depositors that put their money in prudent banks get to bail them out through higher fees.

And people wonder why turnout is low. There’s no way to vote for non captured politicians.
I avoid MS products like the plague nowadays exactly because of their "support", including free overnight OS sabotage.
SVB has assets but not liquidity. This is not like 2008 where the assets themselves are worthless.
> Today we are taking decisive actions to protect the U.S. economy by strengthening public confidence in our banking system.

Ah cool, so you’re:

(1) revoking the bailout money you took from us for the 2008 and 2020 crises

(2) disallowing overdraft fees

(3) reimplementing glass steagall

(4) firing yourselves and then immediately committing seppukku

Like my God, can the wording get any more toothless and cynical? “We know you don’t trust us, and you know we don’t care, but for fear of the nameless void possibly transmogrifying into an angry mob of tens of millions of Americans, we will keep up appearances.”
> Why would anyone invest in any regional bank with the risk of a equity wipeout day to day?

Because some have better books and management than others and will be underpriced because of reactionary selloffs like you describe?
It's pretty embarrassing how many people thought depositors should be on the hook for this. A banking system where companies or people would actually lose money due to bank failures (especially one caused by a run on the bank) would just lead to people only using BOA, JPM, and some merged WF/Citi/whoever else.
It’s a bailout with the costs borne by other banks.

And those costs will be paid by anyone with a bank account.
> Because our modern regulatory regime is pretty good.

It really isn't. The republican party has spent the last 50 years dismantling regulation. Thats why shit like this happens.
Does this all just come down to comparative self-worth?

What if you judged yourself not against others, but rather against your own (perceived) potential? I may not reach the same levels as some others, but I may be reaching a higher percentage of what's realistically achievable with my means. Add to add to that that the axis I'm applying myself has some meaningful value to society, and there's not much room to recognize oneself as a loser.
> Then you typically have until late sunday to put the bid in so they can resolve the bank before market opens on Monday.

nobody is going to pay 100% for them, right?

so it's basically who will pay the most between 50-95% for them?

why wouldn't somebody want assets 5% off (full 95% bid?)
No. People don't want you to get special treatment. Your firm should have insurance to cover the deposits over 250K, or split the money across several banks. It didn't as such it should deal with the consequences. Which are it may not get all of its deposits back.

When a building company, building my house goes bust. The government doesn't step in to get someone to finish building it. When I order goods from a company and it goes bust, the government doesn't step in to ensure I get my goods.
Important to note shareholders, executives, etc still get nothing.
Parsing wikitext is insanely hard. Using HTML is a good compromise.

See also:

* https://github.com/spencermountain/wtf_wikipedia#ok-first-

* https://osr.cs.fau.de/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/wikitext-pa...

* https://utcc.utoronto.ca/~cks/space/blog/programming/Parsing...
I can’t imagine the richest of the rich were parking any significant chunk of their money as a depositor in SVB. These people have access to far greater diversity of investments than whatever SVB was offering.
I can understand the anger and frustration that many people feel — we don’t live in a true meritocracy. But I don’t understand the opinion that choosing a particular bank to open a checking account is equivalent to gambling.
It seems perfectly rational for depositors to access their funds and wipe out SVB’s equity and debt holders.
Not doing so would reward those that withdrew early, caused a panic, started a bank run, and potentially tanking the equity offering in the works. It would be very interesting to see the SEC go after some of them for market manipulation and insider trading.
Not entire, but enough to raise eyebrows, IIRC
Spend a few hours with your finance team to minimize risk.

That's great for people who have a finance team, but a startup with over $250k in the bank can easily be just one or two people who raised money and have no particular finance expertise.

Personally I think we should bump the limits - it should be reasonable for a startup that just raised $10m to be able to put that money somewhere safe, and pay rent, payroll, and an AWS bill with it, without having to hire a "finance team".
because they're not losing any money. we all are (collectively) by bailing them out
Do you think punishing depositors would disincentivize those executives?

And do you have any examples of poor people being charged with insider trading? Every case I have seen is rich people trading.
That's due to the run-time and compiler being different projects. In Lisps it's not unusual to see (defun car (x) (car x)).

Arguably, memcpy belongs in libgcc and not the C library. Glibc should not have to do anything in regard to memcpy, other than include the right compiler header in its stdlib.h.
At the same time, they've essentially raised the insurance limit to infinity. Depositors will be made whole, and if they aren't the next time something happens, they'll need some very good arguments for why the 9th largest bank is now also too big too fail but e.g. the 11th largest isn't.
They're also taking action to prevent this kind of thing from happening again-

> The Fed facility will offer loans of up to one year to banks, saving associations, credit unions and other institutions. Those taking advantage of the facility will be asked to pledge high-quality collateral such as Treasurys, agency debt and mortgage-backed securities.

> “This action will bolster the capacity of the banking system to safeguard deposits and ensure the ongoing provision of money and credit to the economy,” the Fed said in a statement. “The Federal Reserve is prepared to address any liquidity pressures that may arise.”

https://www.cnbc.com/2023/03/12/regulators-unveil-plan-to-st...
> “Privatize the profits”? What are you talking about? The owners of SVB are wiped out

The depositors took risks by lending their money to such a risky bank for better returns in lieu of the risk. It doesnt matter whether SVB gave 0% interest. It provided other amenities, services and opportunities instead - things which other banks could not take the risk to do. Now these banks who played by the rules and the rest of the people and businesses who played it safe, will have to foot the bill for the risk that those depositors took. This literally says "If you are big enough you can take any risk to win big and have the public pay for it if you screw it up". That's something not afforded to a small business owner. So people who say that there is one rule for the ultra rich and another rule for the majority, they are right.

Additionally removing the burden of the deposits from SVB will allow it to recover some of its lost asset value. The state took over its liabilities now.
Reminds me of the "Camera Restricta" [1].

I encourage everyone interested in tech and photography to check out Villem Flusser's Towards A Philosophy of Photography [2] and of course Walter Benjamin's The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction [3].

[1] https://hackaday.com/2017/01/28/camera-restricta-ensures-ori...
[2] (1984) PDF http://imagineallthepeople.info/Flusser_TowardsAPhilosophyof...
[3] (1932) PDF https://web.mit.edu/allanmc/www/benjamin.pdf
I've seen this same argument made by lots of people on Twitter. But as far as I can tell, in at least the last several decades of bank failures in the US, every depositor has been made whole or close to whole, regardless of geography or industry or political favor. Usually the mechanism has been to arrange the failing bank be bought out, rather than to extend the FDIC limit.
They'll be less affected than they would have been if contagion had been allowed to spread unchecked. All banks have a vested interest in the stability of the financial system in general.
At the same time, why would the bank runs continue? AFAIK, this was sparked by Silvergate’s slow motion collapse climaxing on Wednesday, and the infinite FDIC threshold makes more bank runs pointless and self defeating
Do you know what the point of raising interest rates and backstopping bonds at the same time is?

If there's a price floor for older bonds - how does that affect the rates of newer ones? Or is this irrelevant?
The FDIC can waive limits if it feels the deposits are of a systemic nature. It has had this power for a long time
> I really wish we could plan for these entirely foreseeable events ahead of time

That's exactly what Dodd-Frank did. The audit and stress testing requirements got rolled back in the Trump administration. "Planning" is not the problem here.
Consider the order of operations: the article that brought us here simply declares that LPs are now, officially and finally, out-selling CDs. I responded to a top-level comment of the "LPs are bad" variety - perhaps my only real mistake. In other words, I was reacting to someone whose reply to "LPs are popular" was an unprompted "actually, they suck".

I'm not actively seeking out digital music listeners to proselytize records. We tend to not do that because they already have a hard time keeping up with existing demand.

You might not like hearing that most music is mastered for lossy compression, but it doesn't change that it's true. I suggest that you don't confuse "better" mastering (subjective) with mastering for a target medium, which is a technical process.

Anyhow, we all know that LPs only get warmer when you play them on a tube amp. Yes, that was also a joke.
Yes, that makes sense. Perhaps I was too cynical.
>You just scoff at the notion without providing a single reason why acting is a more intellectual pursuit than football.

You do understand the definition of "intellectual", as in "intellectual pursuit"?

And how it is meant to specifically exclude physical activity and things like sports (except if you include something like chess as a sport)?
"Any losses to the Deposit Insurance Fund to support uninsured depositors will be recovered by a special assessment on banks, as required by law."

Shouldn't the insurance cover what was insured? Why is it covering more than that?
I'm not sure how relevant this is to the topic at hand.
> it should be reasonable for a startup that just raised $10m to be able to put that money somewhere safe, and pay rent, payroll, and an AWS bill with it, without having to hire a "finance team"

Aren't VCs supposed to support their investments with expertise? This is eminently socializable expertise.

Nobody has made a real case substantiating why the entire economy does not need to insure upwards to protect startups that don't understand how to secure a giant sack with a dollar sign on it.
I mostly agree with this, but I feel like the past 25 years or so, ever since "the Greenspan put", has just gone more and more in the direction of telling people that they don't need to worry about doing adequate risk assessments, because if you have powerful people that yell loud enough, and you can cause enough damage, that Washington will come to the rescue. Eventually, I just don't see this ending well.

As someone who is naturally risk averse, I feel like a sucker. I was having a conversation in a separate thread where someone remarked "How can you expect startup companies to spread their deposits across multiple banks?" Besides the fact that there are tons of account structures specifically set up to do that, as an individual, I know what these insurance limits are and have moved assets around accordingly (for me, FDIC limits weren't relevant but SIPC limits were).

How much time I wasted. I should have just gone with a powerful enough institution that I knew would get bailed out if they ever failed. I certainly won't waste my time doing this again, which is probably not the follow-on effect that the feds want.
Source: https://github.com/exaloop/codon

Docs: https://docs.exaloop.io/codon/
Yet signature bank was shut overnight?

Not sure a new $25 billion facility matters when outflows can hit that much in a couple of hours.