skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
The upsides are:

* Customers (both individuals and companies) get to generally continue to view banking as a high confidence, high trust activity. Consider the existing cost and friction of KYC and other due diligence measures which are imposed asymmetrically. Reduction to a low-trust environment would seem to double up the friction.

* SBV bought a shit load of longer-term US debt (which is apparently what did them in). Based on current fiscal habits, the US government needs to keep this debt attractive, especially to domestic buyers. There's nothing it can do about the risk of interest rates changing, but the last thing it wants is for depositors to put pressure on banks to avoid long-term US debt.
No that role is made for Paul Walter Hauser
If SVB is acquired, the acquirer also takes on the liability to depositors (most likely all of it, but a haircut could be negotiated) so everyone should get everything back (unless a haircut is negotiated) and handling the shortfall is a cost to the acquirer. Perhaps they believe the future value of the business justifies that, perhaps they don’t and the government pushes them to do it anyway.

If it’s not acquired depositors will take a haircut (get paid less) in the unwinding process so that the amount paid out doesn’t exceed the assets available.
You can use the "-h" (human-readable) options to du and sort to do this:

$ du -sh * | sort -rh
20M dist
6.9M pebble
1.5M internal
308K cmd
...
"Elite overproduction" is a neat semantic trick.

When the word "elite" expands from "toxic billionaire" to "everybody with a liberal arts degree working at Starbucks", a target is taken off the backs of those toxic billionaires.

In this case, it's not the Starbucks baristas calling themselves elite. It's actual toxic elites (via media they control - national review, bloomberg, etc.) calling Starbucks baristas "elites". Implying that they are perhaps a little too entitled - wanting typical elite stuff like affordable healthcare, housing, education, etc.

It parallels the way that people earning $600,000 / year call themselves "middle class".

Or the wonderfully named "baumol's cost disease", which is what some consider to be a frankly disgusting tendency of wages to go up in more productive societies.
Yeah, I was actually looking at the idea of using it to make a little analytics site for my hobby projects last week :). The reason I mentioned it separately though was that I would assume Plausible has written a lot of code to deal with things that using Tinybird means you don't have to worry about.
What people are missing is that the only way a Silicon Valley Bank can exist is if one such is allowed to fail.

If the government is to back deposits 100%, then it should and will have authority to regulate assets purchased. Anything looking different or new or without a track record will be "risky" and unsuitable. Hello, that's what startups look like. Do you want some bureaucrat holding veto power over your bridge loan? Well, if the regulator is on the hook for the loss, then that's what you've got.
> So essentially you are saying we should destroy the environment because it appears to be cheaper in the short term?

"Destroy the environment" is not a binary variable. Decentralized installations could also result in more emissions from transportation to reach all the places, it could eat up more resources (steel) for the support structures. No action you take (or don't take) will have zero side-effects.

So, I'm saying pick the most lifeless places you can find that are still reasonably close to some power distribution infrastructure and put it there. But of course also put it on rooftops and industrial ruins where reasonable. It's not an either/or thing.

> but we shouldn't just disregard the desert or other pristine ecosystems without also utilizing other alternatives to minimize our impact.

It's not disregarding them, it's making tradeoffs. If we need some cheap, flat, unobstructed land to get PV deployed then some marginal desert can be a better choice than cutting down forests, draining swamps or covering arable land.
There are plenty of strongly typed memory safe languages. In fact I think those are the majority of popular languages.
While I get your point...

> It also makes it easier to add arguments to the end if re-running it.

I'd like to point out that a redirection doesn't have to be the last thing in a command. E.g. the common 'echo >&2 "some message"' works fine.
Why does it matter? These depositors trusted someone they shouldn't have with their money knowing fully well that the government only insures 250k worth of it. Any other consumer or company in this situation wouldn't be made whole by taxpayers. Why is this cohort special?
Saudis have 200 years of oil left. Another scenario is oil becoming a minor source of global energy supply. The time horizon of both events is likely decades if not a century.
Wouldn't you want to use 'ls -lt' (sort by time) (or possibly with '-r' if you really want oldest first)? (I.e., does 'om' sort the glob passed to 'ls', which it will then reorder, or does zsh do something magic with the 'ls' command?)
Yes. Having kids still with potential work some shit jobs is worse.
Great work and keep going! I recently heard a good motivator is to think about something as just the "next thing to do" rather than a challenge or problem. Anyways, I don't it might feel like getting advice in an elevator, but I wish you well.
I think it only looks insane because Google is “free”. I’ve been running a SaaS profitably for about a decade (and with employees for half that time), we’re still well below that.

We’re plausible customers for our new thing because we wanted to take a privacy first approach. No need for a cookie banner, no weird permissions or opt out. Just a functional website. I understand GA is crazy powerful, but for what I’m actually using Plausible is so much easier to use.
Yeah I expect that’s the case - the bubonic plague spread via the reservoir fleas and rats, etc.
What can a pipe wrench teach us about software engineering? – mokacoding
You just quoted the first paragraph of the article. What is this adding?
Why do you think the .1% is making hand over fist right now. They keep jacking up prices and the investor class isn't sharing the profits.

That said, wages have gone up some, but generally not for people that remain at a company, you have to be willing to switch jobs to get the benefit.
The same situation applies at nearly EVERY bank at nearly EVERY time.

This is Fractional Reserve Banking [0].

There are almost NEVER enough immediately available liquid assets to survive a bank run.

Deposits are the inventory of a bank. They then hold a small fraction in reserve, while loaning out many times that value. They can also have other assets.

The TOTAL VALUE of all the assets is usually greater than the liabilities, which is the deposits, i.e., the bank is solvent.

That does NOT mean that the same fully solvent bank could immediately cash out those assets at full value to meet a surge in withdrawal demands.

Take any bank, both most solvent and with greatest liquidity. If we had enough clout to start enough insolvency rumors that we can precipitate a big run on Monday, they'll be shut down by Tuesday. All you need is a big enough "megaphone". Once it starts, it is self-reinforcing, because only those who pull their deposits early get anything.

Thiel had exactly such a megaphone, on a bank with assets and deposits highly concentrated in his industry. It is entirely possible, even likely that SVB would be open right now if Thiel had not openly made that call.

We do not have anything near enough information to claim that it was "totally justified", and it may in fact turn out that it was entirely unjustified and created a rapidly self-fulling prophecy.

You can have a huge pile of tinder with gasoline on it, but without anyone actually lighting a match to it, it could be disassembled and made safe. But as soon at that lit match is tossed, it's done.

[0] https://www.investopedia.com/terms/f/fractionalreservebankin...
Why fake billionaire? Isn't he a real billionaire?
The 4.5% rate linked above is in a money market account. It's the exact same rate available from Vanguard today.
From what I read banks must always have funds than liabilities and must immediately liquidate if that isn't true. If someone pays me to hold onto a box of cash for them I should obviously have it available when they ask for it back.

We may use fiat instead of gold now but that doesn't mean a bank can float itself by hoping no one opens the box and breaks their superposition.
> In a war the DoD could just take control of the satellites.

In a war, DoD could buy the satellites, but the 5th Amendment takings clause does not have an exception for war.
Thanks! I was aware of the Aphyr series, but he said Richard also had a series.
Why is this even newsworthy?
We shouldn't accept that bank deposits should be as risky as investments. Functioning low risk bank deposits benefit all of us.
I seriously hope that the people asking the government for a bailout revisit their past policy positions and offer the same empathy to others going forward that they are asking for themselves right now.
It was in fact a "one time" thing done to save the banks. I have not even reached 40 years of age but have lived through somehow 4 "once in a lifetime" economic events. Perhaps economists believe that the human lifespan is only a few years?
> There obviously needs to be a rational best-effort cost-benefit analysis.

You don't seriously think there haven't been many? The problem is that train companies, governments, and people who care about the environment classify and price costs and benefits differently, and government was paid to adopt train company calculus.

It's not that nobody ever thought of figuring out the costs or the benefits of this major, well-known proposed change.
If you mark to market the assets are less than liabilities. It’s unlikely government will keep to maturity a bunch of 30 year mortgages. At the same time, we should just make FDIC limit infinite and make depositors whole.
You bring up art schools, and you’re right. The influence economy is the same way. You don’t win by trying to become elite. The actual winning strat is to sell other people a fantasy of becoming elite. Hence overproduction of markers that were once elite but have been debased and diluted to oblivion.
> blaming the current miasma on "advertisers" is so short-sighted.

I'm not so sure. Do you work for an advertiser? (Quote marks are not for emphasis, by the way.)

Morally, advertising is bankrupt at a minimum, and adversarial/predatory when taken to extremes.

Advertisers will take any surface, real or virtual, which can host advertisements in a cost effective way but does not, and place advertisements on that surface, gleefully. They simply do not care what happens to the thing they place advertisements upon, and they do not care if they ruin it. They see an untapped source of revenue and they wish to tap it.

Advertisers did that to the Internet. Browse on mobile for a few minutes without an ad blocker to see what has happened. To an advertiser, you the reader are a source of funds, and absolutely nothing more. Twenty years ago you were considered a crass advertiser at best if your advertisement animated or even moved in any way. Now we have full-page interstitials and half-page ads which slide in and slide out, and even auto-playing videos which cover a third of the screen. To top it all off, advertisers are upset that the ability to block ads is even possible.

They say they're "losing money" when people use ad blockers, when in reality they are simply not gaining as much money as before. The motive of an advertiser is money, and money alone. Morally advertisers are bankrupt at best, and malignant and predatory at worst.
I agree that we should increase regulation on banks and ensure losses are only borne by the ones engaging in risky behavior.
It's not a company town unless the company owns all the businesses and houses and pays you in company scrip. If you are going to call company planned residential projects for employee housing "company towns", then there are already company towns in Silicon Valley, but you'll have to excuse me for not feeling sorry for the workers.
Depositing cash at a bank is not a different matter. You are giving another organization your money. Everyone knows that the government, FDIC, only insures up to $250k. That organization is then lending it out to make enough profits to employ thousands of people to give you, the depositor, all the services you've come to expect. Only charlatans are dumping $5m into a single bank with the thought, "no worries, if anything goes wrong the government will pay me my $5m."

All of the interest SVB depositors were rewarded with was coming from MBS. Heads, I get extra interest, tails, government bails my deposit out.
I don't mind the looks but I find it hard to debug and have a poor instinct for "does this need a curly bracket or a parens?" That's my real issue with PowerShell, I find it very hard to predict what will work unless I know exactly what the rule is.

Shell has similar issues but I've put 20 years into it so the knowledge is there. Every time the PowerShell people describe PowerShell I think "that sounds awesome" but the ergonomics don't work for me.
Here, it's more like losing access to the amount of that is above $250k for some time, and maybe losing 5-40% of that amount forever. So, (0.1 * x - 250000) * 0.4.

So if you use IntraFi to place across 10 banks, and you have $10M, maybe you lose $300k.

It is a risk... but there's plenty of ways to lose a few percent of your working capital that are out of your control.

If you want to further reduce the risk, you could do additional things (e.g. buy some T-bills).
Or don't buy so many long-dated bonds.
I’m not sure that’s relevant? I didn’t see anything stated about rates of infection. Absolutely if influenza were as fatal as rabies we would be extinct. But we also wouldn’t be posting on hacker news about it either. The statement was about longevity of the pathogen and fatality.
It’s hearsay, honestly, but I heard that participating in their venture loan program involved keeping your deposits exclusively with them as a form of collateral.

For hyperoptimistic founders and VC’s, the opportunity for loans where they aren’t otherwise available may have thrown responsible banking practices out the window.

It would fit the character of the startup industry, seems reasonable from a lending standpoint, and explains why VC’s are now acting like they got caught with their pants down, so I’m curious of there’s truth to it.
>Not all work is worth a living wage

They are not, that's why minimum wage has lagged behind livable wage standards in the United States and Canada for decades, because minimum wages aren't livable wagges.

>the work will either just not get done or it will be automated

But I thought the free market runs itself? If an employee is bad they'd be gone in an eyeblink, so if a job is bad, why should it be allowed continued existence? Unemployment is at historical lows which is part of the reason why these awful jobs with awful pay can't be filled.

>Experience showing up to work, following instructions, getting along with bosses and coworkers

There are plenty of adults who work in """high value jobs""" failing all of that every, single, day. Some of them are here in this very thread advocating for child labour despite not having a single minute of experience working in any of these jobs that are about to exploit children.
> Is this a corruption story? Are they all just that incompetent?

I have heard through the grapevine that some startups were locked into varying exclusivity deals with SVB.
I've always liked this quote from True Detective Season 2.

“Sometimes a thing happens, it splits your life. There’s a before and after. I've got, like, five of them at this point, and this is your first. But if you use it right — the bad thing — you use it right and it makes you better.”

The character is talking to a kid who's dad was murdered.

I think everyone experiences something like this at some point in their life. Life changing doesn't always mean good. The constant is what life was before, and what life is after. People talk about these types of life changing events all of the time.

"Before I got divorced."

"Before my mom died."

But there are some good ones too...

"Before I got my driver's license"

"After I moved out on my own."
Sadly it doesn’t work this way anymore. You just send a heavily lawyered pdf bid letter by email.
It seems that question can be interpreted in two ways:

1. Do you have a link which proves the implementation being discussed is CPU-only?

2. Do you have a link to the official Python-based implementation?

When I wrote the above answer, I was only aware about the first interpretation.
The part you quoted seems to be for "liquidity buffer" (ie. cash on hand for withdraws), not for the overall balance sheet.

>A bank holding company subject to this subpart must maintain a liquidity buffer that is sufficient to meet the projected net stressed cash-flow need over the 30-day planning horizon of a liquidity stress test conducted in accordance with paragraph (a) of this section under each scenario set forth in paragraph (a)(3)(i) through (iii) of this section.
That type of thinking didn't save svb and won't save other banks.
It's not exaggerating; I cannot remember a single VGA title made after '91 that uses plain mode 0x13. Primary reason being not being able to double buffer. By that time, EGA titles were also practically dead, the notable exception being Civlization.

Sure, there were games pre-91, but in the '90, the PC market exploded, together with available games. The amount what was available in '90s dwarfs the older titles, so "almost all" is greatly fitting.
I talked to some random student in a parking lot at the university.

He asked what I wanted to do with a physics degree. I said I wanted to discover the unified field theory. He said, yeah, but what do you do with it? I said, first you collect your Nobel Prize. Yeah, he said, but what do you do with it?

I realized that even if I could do this incredible breakthrough, it wouldn't actually change anything for anybody. It wouldn't heal anyone's cancer. It wouldn't change anyone's life emotionally, psychologically, or spiritually (if you believe there is such a thing). It would be, in all practical ways, completely irrelevant.

I got my BS degree in physics, but I didn't go to grad school. Don't plan on ever doing so.
"Credit unions are required to maintain coverage for all deposit liabilities."

So are banks.

What fraction of total deposits must be held in cash?
Thanks for the reply!

I have thought quite a bit about this over the past few of years, and I think it is probably the best method for replacing elected officials at least up to the senate level.

"Being able to select adequately competent participants can be a challenge depending on your source pool, and some point there would need to be a fair process, resistant to manipulation or gaming, in order to cull less qualified individuals."

I agree that it will initially be a challenge to find 'competent participants', but I think this can be solved by introducing/adding courses at the high-school level that the community/citizens believe are essential (I am thinking econ, history, the constitution, etc.)

I also agree that fairness is another an important issue - care must be taken to ensure that whatever 'competence' criteria are used don't turn into another poll-tax.

"There also exists problems with this method in highly polarized political environments, particular those in which exists two entirely separate information ecosystems such as the US."

Another excellent point. But I think we all have family members and friends who hold views that are the complete opposite of our own, or we may view are extreme, but we also find other issues we agree on and find ways to work/live together.

I think if a congressperson knows that they don't have to raise money or worry about a primary challenge, then I believe they will find ways to work with people from a different party, or colleagues who are independents.

The separate information systems will still be there, but I don't believe their influence on legislators will be at the level it is now.
Lets reinvent the wheel but rather than having it round, lets make it square so its slower and less efficient, then we can slap our names on it and cross promote ourselves for higher paying web development jobs
It’s super contagious in the reservoir species. But it’s not in humans. The point made above was about age if the pathogen not infectiousness.
Loving the connotations of “Devil’s Abacus”.
It would be a mistake.

It's not the hotdog seller on the streets that has to pay for the mistakes that the high-risk ventures bank did.

Here, we talk about private guys doing deals together; it's a specialized corporate bank, made for high-risk ventures.

So, its main customer base are companies that are funded by VCs.

The fact is that many VCs already pulled out billions in profit by doing successful exits with their startups.

If the VCs want to continue to have more successful exits, then their own interest is to support or save SVB.

If the VCs don't save SVB, then they know that their future return on investment on non-exited ventures will get unlikely.

VCs already have incentive to save the companies that were dependent on SVB (or to directly save SVB) to maximize the chances of getting a return.

All of that means that VCs or other capital sources will anyway take the opportunity to offer loans at outrageous rates to these companies to "save them", and happily say "hey, we at VC [ABC], we support our companies so much that we negotiated new issue of convertible notes".

At the same time, they should offer not too outrageous conditions, to not demotivate the founders.

It's not the role of the government to sponsor the profit of the VCs, and to take all the losses when things go sour.
What are some speculations on the scenarios that might play out based on this?
Normally I'd think that an unfair point. We can't generally expect workers to evaluate the financial soundness of their employers. But we are talking about startups here. Everybody going in knows that most startups fail. Hopefully everybody has an exit plan.
I am not sure where you are from but 600k a year is not that much. That's a staff engineer at a well capitalized unicorn. You can reach there within or under a decade. In places like Cali, half of your money goes to taxes. Unless that 600k is in dividends/capital gains, you get diminishing returns the more you make. It's solidly upper middle class, but the elite class ceiling is very high when you have founders making 9 figure exits in low interest rate environments.

(Downvoters can go suck on their sour grapes, if you aren't negotiating a total compensation in line with the value you are creating, that's not my problem. You are in an industry that generates disproportionately large returns per individual contributor and the fact that you don't know how to capture the value of your own labor is entirely on you. Spend less time practicing leetcode and more time on learning business).