skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Yes you owe the depositor in current dollars, and that's why the bank failed. But I was responding to the parent about it not mattering if the bond is held to maturity - it does matter.

The problem SVB had is that there was no market buyer for their bonds at a price they needed today. They deserve to fail for that but that's not the part of the discussion I am responding to.

What I am responding to is the idea that there is a myth about the value of the bond. Here is what might happen, in a very simplified way:

- Depositors need their cash today
- SVB can't sell their assets to meet this need, and so the bank is fails and is dissolved (already happened). Let's make this simple and say SVB owes the depositor $1000, can sell for bonds for $800 today. If they can have wait the bonds will return $1200 later.
- The FDIC steps in with all their capital. They say ok - depositor here is your $1000 today and you are now whole. But we will not sell the SVB bond today to cover that $1000, instead we will hold the bond and wait for it to mature at $1200. Thus the depositor is whole, and over the long term no money is lost.

No regular market participant step in to provide the $1000 because they can get a better return on their money in other ways. But the government can do this because their goal is not maximizing return on capital, but instead stabilizing the system.
Your comment ignores that SVB made bad investments for which they will not be held responsible.
Leaving abusive and discriminatory bosses is certainly a good idea, but it doesn't mean that we can't be outraged by the actions of abusive and discriminatory bosses.
>... "they did it because China discriminates against LGBT" is pretty far-fetched ...

I agree; that's not what I was trying to say, and I'm sure the primary motivator was money.

You're correct, other dating apps did and still do sell data. [0]

The point I was trying to make is that American consumers are already regarded as barely human from a privacy perspective by our own corporations. It gets worse from there (TikTok), and when you add a certain country's poor LGBTQ human rights record, it's just icing on the cake. By that point they really don't care.

---

Match Group, for all their evil, currently states:

Match Group does not sell the personal information of our users to any third party. [1]

Then in the next paragraph:

In particular, we do NOT use sensitive data, such as sexual orientation, racial or ethnic origins, religion, or precise geolocation data for advertising. [1]

I like the "precise" part. Sounds like selling personal information to me, but I'm not a lawyer.

[0] https://www.npr.org/2020/01/14/796427696/study-grindr-tindr-...

[1] https://mtch.com/privacy
Their privacy was invaded the minute it was collected and sold by the dating app. The Catholic group that used this data are assholes, but the people collecting, selling, and reselling the data are worse.
You and I both know that as messed up as this was, nothing will be done to reign in the power of these VC's. I always vaguely knew that the billionaire class has the government over a barrel, but now they know, concretely, with real world evidence, that this is the case.
Singapore software vendor says own hardware in colo costs $400M less than cloud
This isn't grounded in reality. You make it sound like banks will just end as an enterprise, and we'll have to go back to carrying little bags of silver coins.

Depositors are the absolute last group to lose money in a bankrupt bank. When a bank collapses its assets don't just disappear, and depositors (and paychecks) get first scoop from the pot.

It would be nice if everyone didn't have such hostility towards personal responsibility. You never put all your eggs in one basket. You diversify where you keep your money.

The government can best help by doing what it does best. Let it invest in making bankruptcy courts super efficient. Set up automated systems to drip feed payouts to depositors as assets are sold.

The "heads you win tails we lose" deal we give to bankers, which we don't give to anyone else, is fundamentally evil, and we have to stop bowing to their terroristic threats that if you don't give us this deal you're all doomed.
It was the reason they killed it for me.

Google Reader was successful and growing. It wasn’t killed on its own merits.

It was killed because Google decided Facebook was an existential threat to them so they had to do everything they could to make Google+ work, including killing otherwise successful and popular products like Reader because, killing it may lead to a slight increase in G+ adoption.
Motorists Break Law to Save Time, Cyclists Break Law to Save Lives (2020)
Interesting, why do you think that is? As a straight guy, facial appearance would be extraordinarily important for me - even for a hookup. Is it not as much of a priority, or are people still closeted / afraid of being catfished?
The table of constants leads to this fun example:

System.out.println(Integer.valueOf(22) == Integer.valueOf(22)); // true

System.out.println(Integer.valueOf(2200) == Integer.valueOf(2200)); // false

Which is a bit confusing to say the least. I realize one should never be using == with objects, but still.
>The Fed / FDIC can see this happening and now are over a barrel. So the VCs managed to start one run, then jump up and down yelling to be saved OR ELSE we are going to actively start a series of runs by undermining trust. It's super cynical, and basically allowed the banking system to be held hostage.

That's the risk you run investing in a bank. Better this than the 2008 bailouts when the banks ran themselves into the ground for profit and were still made whole. And, better this than spooking the entire financial system by not protecting deposits.
Never heard of Trove, thanks! Have only used fastutil, which looks to be about the same thing.
That would average around 225K/yr salary after payroll tax. With retirement, health, etc benefits it’s closer to reality for an engineering salary than you think.
brilliant article - the TS therein is type-hints basically, helping the coder program to chess spec. so yes, in that scenario it's not generating JS (functions etc) lol
> What banker got a “ski jolly” here?

Well, this guy for one:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/brianbushard/2023/03/10/svb-fin...
You are describing the unbridled panic of a hundred extremely frightened VCs and startup CFOs as “rational” behaviour. The bank did not have to collapse on Friday. If it had not collapsed then none of these people would have had their funds locked up in the bankruptcy settlement. I’m not saying it’s all their fault, but they engaged in a big discussion in which they could have agreed on some collective action, and then somehow decided to each act in their own interests and withdraw at full speed, seeing (and I quote Alexander Torrenegra https://twitter.com/torrenegra/status/1634573234187407369), “only upside, no downside” to that approach.

If everyone was talking to each other, and they’re so smart and rational, why didn’t they decide to have everyone take out a small amount to cover essentials like payroll? Was it maybe… greed? Lack of ingenuity? To be fair, bank runs do happen, but everyone who caused this one was in a big old group chat and they could have prevented it, and nobody had the idea.

If it was so rational, why did they continue to demand a bailout even after it became clear the FDIC would get them nearly 100% back? Was it maybe… greed? God forbid that anyone lose even a few cents of uninsured deposits. What happened to paying for extra insurance? Now they complain about contagion to get a bailout, contagion which they began and continued.
They cannot hold to maturity. Because you cannot offer your depositors 1.45% on deposits when their best alternative is 4.5-5% in risk free money market funds and treasury bills. Depositors won't just sit there and watch 6%+ inflation eat away at the real value of their deposits. The assets are correctly priced and bond losses are real.
Oddly, it had been reported that the bidding process for the bank was 'competitive' and that there were several interested parties. I can't see how that could have been true if the final price was a token £1 ?
What if you need more than one load of dishes done per day?
You don't solve a bankrun you prevent it from happening. It's like nuclear war- the only winning move is not to play.
> The Fed / FDIC can see this happening and now are over a barrel. So the VCs managed to start one run, then jump up and down yelling to be saved OR ELSE we are going to actively start a series of runs by undermining trust.

You have to wonder if any financial authority will step in order to investigate this. After all screaming "fire!" in a crowded theatre should be punishable, especially if you end up financially profiting from said action of screaming.
> Might was well give anyone an account at the Fed or something like that

That's an interesting proposition, that was simply unfeasible from a practical perspective until very recently.

A consumer bank needed branches, and tills, and vaults, and all sorts of things to serve customers, so it was just unfeasible for most nation-states to eat the costs of all that - while private entities were incentivised to set all of that up so that they could raise money to invest for their own profit.

Now that money is increasingly a purely digital construct, a true National Bank could actually be feasible at low cost, providing a 100% safe deposit system for consumers that will never pay any interest. Private banks would likely still exist, they'd just provide more incentives to depositors (i.e. higher returns). This would make private banks a bit less central to the whole system, and make society a bit more fault-tolerant in this area.

It's an interesting policy proposition, and maybe talking about it would be a bit more productive than the average thread on banks.
There is OptionalLong in the standard library, though. Java just can’t do generic specialization as of yet, which is necessary for Optional<long> to be a different implementation (+ value types of course)
I want to build a business someday, and have always been interested on what to watch for when looking for a business bank as a founder.

Do you mind sharing why do you think HSBC is a good business bank and what are the typical qualities a business needs to have to be great for founders?
It changes whether depositors give banks their deposits in the first place.
Yep, the celibacy is not about sex but about marriage; throughout history it was not that rare for priests to have unofficial spouses and kids, and at some times it wasn't even particularly shunned, but the concept of celibacy ensured that there couldn't be any legitimate kids i.e. heirs.
Ask HN: What would be an MVP for NPS?
Hi all, Anton here.
We're building a multi-channel feedback management platform and one of the channels we've added is the Net Promoter Score (NPS).
That's the one I'm sure you've seen already:"How likely are you recommend this service to a frend or a colleague?" and comes with a score from 0 to 10.

We've decided to add this channel to the FREE plan (as part of our PLG (Product-Led-Growth) motion). We want to provide it for free and would like to get a collective opinion on what should be the bare minimum.

Right now we have an in-app NPS prompts that can be configured on how frequently to show, when to show the first time, and when to show after it was closed with no score.

All votes go to the feedback inbox (whether it's a score with a comment or just a score).

Any suggestions on limitations?

Thank you!

https://www.prodcamp.com/features/net-promoter-score
Que cotorro
That's really a great explanation. Short but detailed, rigorous and visual. Really hits the spot.
> risk-free investment

That's what I don't get. Why are bonds considered risk free if their value can drop when interest rates go up? Sure, they may be worth $1200 in 10 years, but they're only worth $835 now, when they were worth $1000 yesterday.

Risk may be lower than buying shares in a company at risk of bankruptcy, but it's hardly risk free. These things can go up and down just like normal share prices.
They're already losing enough money with Marcus right now, why risk losing some more? Goldman needs to figure out how to properly run their existing consumer bank first.
A controversial statement to some, but IMO the US is a Corporatocracy more than a Federal Constitutional Republic. More "Modern Corporate Capitalism", less Free-market Capitalism.

Point being, some businesses _are_ more equal than others because they have the money to lobby lawmakers. In an actual free market, the banks should fail.

However, it seems to me that the situation with SVB is a Democratic Socialist move. Again, my opinion, but it seems rather progressive. In history, Democratic Socialist programs have produced, arguably, valuable programs for the US. Unfortunately, mentioning "Socialist" is usually the point in which many will stop listening.

[wiki](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_socialism#:~:text=D....)
No, but they're a useful target for Verilog, and this limitation is shared by any hardware compute/circuit (I had hoped that would be obvious from the description)
the whole org was using inbox, snoozed emails with a really streamlined interface was sublime. Everyone was mad.
The bank doesn’t exist any more, the stockholders were wiped out and leaders will have lost tens of millions.

How is that not being held responsible?
Your whole story boils down to you not properly reading an email that even says "Important Information". I don't understand how that part isn't your fault. They even tell you that your account will be suspended in the email. How do you not have a special filter to route emails from critical service providers? And I don't agree that GCP is "the only one that will suspend you for things like this". AWS can and has suspended accounts for arcane reasons though support was reasonably helpful enough

I sympathise with the abysmal support though obviously. GCP has horrid support and deserve to be called out. I wouldn't recommend GCP to anyone
> A special “I would never write Rust like that” variant that returns the value in a Box on the heap. This is because a friend of mine, after seeing my results, told me I was cheating, because all Rust versions so far used registers/stack to return the value, and Java was at a disadvantage due to returning on the heap (by default). So here you are.

Why would Rust be cheating here? Java cannot make these types of optimizations yet (though they are likely coming with Project Valhalla) but that doesn't mean Rust should be similarly handicapped in benchmarks.

Java has many smart optimizations and advantages over Rust (being garbage collected for one, making it much easier to write code in, and runtime reflection, a blessing and a curse) and with tricks like rearranging objects to make more effective use of CPU caches you can end up writing Java that's very close in performance to native, precompiled code.

However, when it comes to raw performance, you shouldn't expect the standard JVM to come close to Rust. There is inherent overhead in the way the language and the runtime are designed. There is no "cheating" here, the algorithms are the same and some languages just produce more efficient code in these scenarios. You wouldn't slow down the JVM to make the benchmark fair for a Python implementation either!

A more interesting comparison may be compiling Java to native assembly (through Graal for example) so Java too can take advantage of not having to deal with reflection and using SIMD instructions.

Alternatively, a Java vs C# rundown would also be more interesting, as both languages serve similar purposes and solve similar problems. C#'s language-based approach to optional values has the potential to be a lot faster than Java's OOM-based approach but by how much remains to be seen.

Java vs Kotlin may also be interesting to benchmark to see if the Kotlin compiler can produce faster code than Java's Optional; both run inside the same JVM so the comparison may be even better.
From time to time I'm starting a Theorem prover tutorial, sometimes I even finish. The learning curve is long.

Thanks, I looked at the Agda version. It is more explicit and well documented.

And I agree: tactics are another thing to learn and can be very arcane.

But in this discussion everybody admires Isabelle/Hol's automation: "I'm envious of the degree of automation that Isabelle affords".

---

My problem with "theorem eval_eval : x ~>* (eval x).embed" was very basic.

I got confused by the infix definition of "~>*".

Viewing the type in the playground as "∀ {a : Ty} {x : Exp a}, RTC Eval x (Val.embed a (eval x))" helped.

---

I am just dabbling around but I will try Lean 4. It seems to work well though it is not officially released.

And Lean 4 seems to be a very fast funcional programming language.

(I actually finished an Agda Tutorial a few years ago, it's focus is on programming. Lean somehow succeeded to "fix" or "hack around" this annoying intensional equality:

"Lean's standard library defines an additional axiom, propositional extensionality, and a quotient construction which in turn implies the principle of function extensionality"

)
The price doesn't fall because the future purchasing power falls, the price falls because there are better alternatives in the market. No one will pay $1000 for a 2% return when they can pay $1000 for a 5% return. Market participants will always maximize their return. Bond prices adjust to be competitive or equivalent.

But the govt. doesn't have this problem. They don't care about maximizing return - they care about containing contagion. So they can pay $1000 for a 2% return and not still not lose money over the long term.
Are CBDCs going to be the future?
Damn bank executives buying risky treasury bonds! Arrest them!
/s
My point is not that terminals themselves are good, but that there's clearly value in a terminal-style interface where commands are input instead of buttons clicked.

The original comment was suggesting that the value was outdated, but I think command palettes are a good counter-example.
I lose confidence in banks when their failure results in special treatment that no one else has access to, perpetuating the behavior that caused the failure.
OpenChatKit First open-source ChatGPT alternative
OpenChatKit released by Together is a first open-source ChatGPT alternative. OpenChatKit is a 20B chat-GPT model!

The model is an instruction-tuned large language model, fine-tuned for chat from EleutherAI GPT-NeoX-20B with over 43 million instructions under an Apache-2.0 license!

You can try it for free on Hugging Face.

Demo: https://huggingface.co/spaces/togethercomputer/OpenChatKit
Model: https://huggingface.co/togethercomputer/GPT-NeoXT-Chat-Base-...
Announcement: https://www.together.xyz/blog/openchatkit

#opensourcesoftware #machinelearning #ai #chatgpt
They’re OTC so probably the biggest bank IR desks. Of course they must hedge on their own etc.
I don't understand..

If a religion condemns homosexuality.. And you are homosexual.. Why would you want to subscribe to that religion ?

Even more baffling to me, why would you want to be a preacher of that set of ideas ?

I'm not religious.. I prefer the religious institutions be allowed to be as bigoted as is their nature, they must be allowed to show their true colors, so that people can see them for what they are and avoid them more readily.
Having good enough opsec that you can't be identified just isn't realistic for normal people, we need to ban this stuff. I'm quite disappointed that GDPR seems to have just resulted in the addition of meaningless consent forms to every website
7 Use cases for soulbound tokens that could transform society
So our banking system needs somewhere to park capital risk free, and it’s economically desirable that’s in a place that doesn’t create other distortions such as asset inflation or malinvestment. So we have treasuries as a tool for the financial system.

But there seems to be a premise in this thread that the US Gov needs (as in has no other possible choice, even via legislative change) to sell treasuries in order to fundraise.

I accept that’s sort of how the current system works in that effectively the US Gov creates capital/spend in the financial system via various programs and investments and attempts to offset inflationary effects / currency deflation effects by taxation and other revenue before finally encouraging other parties to allocate capital out of the system in the form of treasuries to make up the shortfall.

Effectively as I see it a treasury is then a promise not to spend capital for the term in exchange for the promise you’ll get the expected present value of that capital returned at the conclusion of that term (or in the case of TIPS/I-Bonds, the best approximation of the actual present value of that capital at that time).

Amongst other features, this neatly “allows” the US Gov to allocate an equivalent amount of capital to a purpose it considers appropriate while theoretically lessening impacts compared to simply spending that money without the offsetting treasuries.

But I’m not entirely sure there’s some sort of fundamental rule that the US Gov with the support of the Fed “needs” anyone to buy treasuries - together they could, as an example I’m not necessarily advocating, provide a safe haven facility for anyone who wanted it and continue to influence the monetary system and zero-risk rate of return (eg by the Fed paying interest on reserve accounts as they have since 2008) while otherwise having the Fed simply create the currency the government requires for deficit expenditure (eg by directly buying treasuries from the Gov if we perpetuate the illusion) and using other fiscal policy to control the inflationary/distortion effects of this spend.

That is, I’m not sure it’s the case that the US Gov exactly needs the banks to borrow treasuries because it could not afford them not to. Rather, the value of treasuries is as a measure to absorb excess liquidity, provide safe haven, and adjust risk behaviour in the financial system.

My open question is whether the current system is the only way, yet alone the best way, to practically achieve this goal?
Didn’t their shareholders get completely wiped out? How is SVB (to the extent it’s anything, it’s the shareholders), not being held responsible?

The people being protected here aren’t SVB. It’s the customers.
Show HN: I made this artistic QR generator
The important role of banks in our economy is lending, funded by deposits. Few businesses can survive, let alone get started, without access to credit.

If the banking system collapses most businesses will fail.
The rust NonZeroU64 solution has a subtle 'bug' that happens not to matter.

The function

fn get_optional_non_zero(n: u64) -> Option<NonZeroU64>

let i = n & 0xFF;
if i == MAGIC { None } else { NonZeroU64::new(i) }
}

Actually returns None for n = 0 or n is any multiple of 256.

The resulting usage in the sum still yields the same result, because skipping zeros in an addition doesn't matter, but it is a subtle difference between this get-function compared to all of the others. It also doubles the number of None cases the code needs to handle.
ASML, a Philips spin-off, is worth about $250 billion today. They make the machines used to manufacture high-end semiconductors everywhere.

In that sense Philips’s legacy still underpins every smartphone and computer today.
As far as I understand SVB UK did not have a duration risk like the parent co.
You can implement a CPU completely with random logic, zero microcode - it has been done before. Yes you do end up needing something like extra registers to hold control state - but that’s not microcode