Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Post
  • Reply
raminasi
Jan 25, 2005

a last drink with no ice
i start a new job at a startup on monday. the corporate card they've already issued me is from svb. thoughts and prayers pls

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

raminasi
Jan 25, 2005

a last drink with no ice

Beeftweeter posted:

i don't think it's necessarily that they're risky assets, they just bought them in an unbelievably stupid way and did nothing to mitigate when interest rates went up

it has really brought into focus that when people say that an asset is "risky" it's usually not interpreted to mean interest rate risk

raminasi
Jan 25, 2005

a last drink with no ice

mila kunis posted:

pretending that this is being done to save the poor security guards at Disruptr rather than ensuring VCs don't have a bunch of their investments don't go to zero overnight is some next level shamelessness.

or, it’s being done to protect general confidence in banking period, which is very much in the interest of both of those groups

raminasi
Jan 25, 2005

a last drink with no ice

mila kunis posted:

Given that this is obviously not going to happen, what does that say about who holds power here and why dismissing the idea that this is just rich people being made whole for free is loving stupid? That this isn't something to be angry about?

in whose interest is nationalizing disruptr, exactly? nobody in the world wants the government to own that. (do you?) and that's not even getting to

MononcQc posted:

lol @ nationalizing a company for giving them the money they deposited and that should have been theirs if the banks weren't run by morons who kept arguing in favor of deregulation and then getting it.

raminasi
Jan 25, 2005

a last drink with no ice

mila kunis posted:

i would love most companies in the economy to be state owned (if not state run) but even leaving that aside, the government should still get that equity and sell it off if they don't want to keep it so that the investors in these companies don't get made whole for nothing :)

i genuinely don't understand your ideal model of depository banking. if i deposit money in a bank, and that bank fails, the government takes some of my other stuff and sells it to someone else, keeping the cash?

raminasi
Jan 25, 2005

a last drink with no ice

mila kunis posted:

if those businesses should absolutely be saved by a bailout then they should give up equity in return, yes.

yeah this is what i mean by not understanding what you want in a depository banking system. they're fundamentally built on trust, and that can't exist if whenever your bank fails the government gets your poo poo.

raminasi
Jan 25, 2005

a last drink with no ice

mila kunis posted:

i believe what happens in a depository banking system is that you get the money back that you held in an insured account, for the value that that insurance covers.

if you get special government favours that get you everything back for nothing, when regular people otherwise would not, then i think its reasonable for people to state that it's a rigged and corrupt system doing corrupt things, espescially in the context of public services and the commons being privatized and wealth being funneled upwards for the last 4 decades.

you keep saying "for nothing" like that's not the way that depository banking is expected and relied upon to work. when i deposit money in a bank, i expect to be able to get it back "for nothing," because it's a bank. the $250k insurance limit is just kind of an arbitrary one, it's not magic or special. would you support raising the insurance limit to ten billion dollars? because that would cause the same outcome for depositors.

raminasi
Jan 25, 2005

a last drink with no ice

mila kunis posted:

if i deposit money in an uninsured account in FartBank, I do not get money back. If I deposit money above the insured value in an account in FartBank, I do not get money back above the insured value. They are getting preferential treatment that I would not get. They are absolutely getting it "for nothing".

yes...you would? that's the whole point? if you, right now, had money over the fdic limit at some random bank, and that random bank were at risk of failure because of interest rate risk on its long-term bond holdings, then that random bank would use the new fed borrowing mechanism to avoid insolvency, and you'd be able to withdraw your entire account. that's why they're doing this, so that you - a random depositor who hasn't bothered to audit the bank you chose - don't have to worry about your money vanishing because of something you have no knowledge of or control over.

i agree that they're getting it "for nothing." i'm saying that that's the point. that's how banks are supposed to work, for everybody.

mila kunis posted:

isn't FDIC insurance covered by premiums? presumably those premiums would skyrocket if the insured amount limit went to 10 billion dollars?

in any case it appears the insurance limit does get raised to ten billion dollars arbitrarily, if sufficiently well connected people get distressed! not for me though.

and now i get to ask my real question: why do you think fdic insurance exists?

raminasi fucked around with this message at 16:41 on Mar 13, 2023

raminasi
Jan 25, 2005

a last drink with no ice
how much trading volume on any given day is hedge fund robots anyway

raminasi
Jan 25, 2005

a last drink with no ice

Beeftweeter posted:

the former head of SVB lobbied for and received weakened regulations. i don't know the details of what changed well enough to make a judgement on whether or not it would have prevented its collapse, but it seems likely. it also seems like federal regulations for most mid-sized banks (which are actually systemically important) were defanged to the point that you now have state regulators (i.e. in new york re: signature) stepping in to do the needful instead

probably bad

i think ca regulators put svb into receivership, but my interpretation was just that all banks are chartered at the state level so that's just how it works

raminasi
Jan 25, 2005

a last drink with no ice

Beeftweeter posted:

i think that was the fdic, SVB is now owned by them

i do know that there are federal and state charters anyway. the loss of either one is probably fatal regardless

no i mean that ca authorities actually did the thing. (the fdic is the receiver, but it was appointed by ca.) see here https://www.fdic.gov/resources/reso...ted%20Receiver.

raminasi
Jan 25, 2005

a last drink with no ice

mila kunis posted:

ii repeat: if i deposit money in an uninsured account in FartBank, I do not get money back. If I deposit money above the insured value in an account in FartBank, I do not get money back above the insured value. They are getting preferential treatment that I would not get. They are absolutely getting it "for nothing". this new insolvency scheme was brought out now and specifically once it looked like connected vc assholes would take a beating. do you have an answer to the following question:

if you, yosposter mila kunis, had uninsured deposits at svb or signature, then you, yosposter mila kunis, would be protected by the same insurance extension that all the actual uninsured depositors of those banks are currently under. if you have uninsured deposits at any other bank, then your uninsured deposits there are now equally protected as any other uninsured deposits at those banks. you are not being treated any differently than anyone else.

mila kunis posted:

why was FDIC insurance capped at 250k do you think?

because the thinking before today was that you prevented bank runs by reassuring a large number of people with relatively small account balances. as of today, that method is considered insufficient, but the ultimate goal - preventing bank runs by creating a source of confidence - has not. fdic insurance protects the little guy but it's a means to an end.

mila kunis posted:

yeah for sure i don't have a problem with the companies being given money if the intent is to save people's jobs, just take equity from investors and founders in return.

the money they are being "given" is their own money.

raminasi
Jan 25, 2005

a last drink with no ice

PIZZA.BAT posted:

lol yellen just emphasized that your deposits being insured by fdic will depend entirely and arbitrarily on whether the fdic board considers your bank a systemic risk

bob dobbs was right

:munch:

what should she do instead? if she says "everyone's insured" then bankers will do even more coke and gamble even more with depositor money. if she says "only these specific banks are insured" then it will trigger runs on all the other ones. "you might or might not be insured, if you don't wanna find out then don't gently caress around" doesn't seem like the worst middle ground.

raminasi
Jan 25, 2005

a last drink with no ice

Beeftweeter posted:

took a minute to track down in the cspam thread

https://twitter.com/charliebilello/status/1635982686111121408





loving disgusting

that's the bridge bank created by the fdic as part of the receivership process. so the fdic is directly responsible for that specific language because a) it's true and b) depositor confidence makes it easier for the fdic to not own the bank anymore

raminasi
Jan 25, 2005

a last drink with no ice

AlbertFlasher posted:

they also want to drive up deposits so when they sell the bank off it's worth more

it's not "also," this is the point. the fdic doesn't want to own the bank because long-term bank ownership isn't their job, and the more depositor money it has the more attractive it is to buyers.

raminasi
Jan 25, 2005

a last drink with no ice

Beeftweeter posted:

what does that matter to the bank as an institution? they don't need the shareholders now, and the people working there are actually making 1.5x what they were

what's "the institution" to you? executive leadership turned over. the logo? the workers?

raminasi
Jan 25, 2005

a last drink with no ice

Beeftweeter posted:

...the bank as a business? yes, they are now under receivership, but removing the ceo is no guarantee that their actual practices will change. afaik the rest of the c-suite remains the same

if your problem is that the c-suite isn't being sufficiently punished, then how does screwing over uninsured depositors help? you think they don't care about shareholders, what makes you think they care about uninsured depositors?

raminasi
Jan 25, 2005

a last drink with no ice

Beeftweeter posted:

i am not saying they should screw over uninsured depositors

then what are you objecting to?

Beeftweeter posted:

that doesn't matter. they are saying "everyone who deposits at SVB is fully insured up to any amount, which you will not get at another bank"

which probably is bad! they effectively removed consequences for the bank behaving badly. it also signals to other banks that they can fail and nothing will happen either

"consequences" here is the potential for normally uninsured depositors to lose their money, and you seem to take issue with preventing that

raminasi fucked around with this message at 17:26 on Mar 17, 2023

raminasi
Jan 25, 2005

a last drink with no ice

pseudorandom name posted:

the normal state of affairs was to attempt your search query on all of your favorite search engines and your list of favorite search engines changed week to week

google went from one of the search engines you use to the only search engine you use almost overnight

i remember metacrawler, the search engine that just searched on multiple other search engines for you

raminasi
Jan 25, 2005

a last drink with no ice
i wonder if he’s worried that popular awareness of real things that “look like ai” to regular people will make it clear to everyone that miri and the like have absolutely no connection to any research in the field

raminasi
Jan 25, 2005

a last drink with no ice

Shame Boy posted:

product managers are fine if they do their job right because they make it so i don't have to talk to customers and that's great

a good product manager is an incredible productivity multiplier and i have to assume that everyone who complains about the profession as a whole has never had the good fortune to work with one

i hate that scene in office space

raminasi
Jan 25, 2005

a last drink with no ice
one time, already drunk, i ordered a truffle martini. it was disgusting but i was so drunk that after finishing it i proceeded to immediately order and drink a second one.

i can't drink martinis anymore.

raminasi
Jan 25, 2005

a last drink with no ice
maybe this is atypical but neither i nor anyone i know has had worse experiences or outcomes with nps or even pas than mds so i really don’t mind the rising frequency of them. the lack of a residency-like requirement for them is lame though

raminasi
Jan 25, 2005

a last drink with no ice

mystes posted:

nps seem to have plenty of practical knowledge and it feels like actual mds just google your symptoms nowadays anyway

according to my np friend the first year or two out of school, before they get that practical knowledge, is real rough. apparently you get handed a diploma and then thrown in with patients on your own. good luck!

raminasi
Jan 25, 2005

a last drink with no ice

Shame Boy posted:

all these guys are clearly using teh internet

see i’d draw the exact opposite conclusion

raminasi
Jan 25, 2005

a last drink with no ice
the totality of his disconnection from the world is mind-boggling. what is the life of someone like that, with problems and aspirations so cartoonish and hollow? he doesn't even have the excuse of incredible wealth breaking his brain.

raminasi
Jan 25, 2005

a last drink with no ice

haveblue posted:

isn't there an app for this by now

it was called airpnp and it folded years ago

raminasi
Jan 25, 2005

a last drink with no ice

Shame Boy posted:

it's not a constant amount decrease either, but also it's always round human-like numbers, so i assume a person is just sitting there going "hmm, nobody wants my lovely place for $3900, perhaps there will be a taker for $3650" and then a month later "well $3650 didn't work, perhaps $3450" etc.

could be that one piece of software that a bunch of landlords use to calculate rental prices https://www.propublica.org/article/yieldstar-rent-increase-realpage-rent

raminasi
Jan 25, 2005

a last drink with no ice

Shame Boy posted:

but they couldn't though, cuz nothing rented at anywhere near those prices and they're almost back to semi-reasonable levels after ratcheting down since 2021

like i have to imagine some landlord somewhere managed to get $4k a month for a place that was previously $800 on a fluke and made some "NOW IS THE BEST TIME TO EXTORT! LEARN MY SECRETS!!" video that everyone watched or something

the software i linked attempts to maximize overall revenue, not occupancy, and its creator is on record complaining about landlords who charge less than they can get away with

raminasi
Jan 25, 2005

a last drink with no ice

Beeftweeter posted:

every building i've lived in in nyc was managed by some bespoke LLC that was in turn controlled by a larger corporation that was d/b/a something else

yeah me too

raminasi
Jan 25, 2005

a last drink with no ice

Shame Boy posted:

do jobs even exist anymore that are not ~full stack~ because i hate working on frontends and worked hard to not have to do that at this last job

i have had multiple “full stack” jobs in which i never touched a single javascript. ime the term means that the team you’re on owns a full-stack product but if the manager is good and you say “i don’t wanna do frontend” you won’t have to.

raminasi
Jan 25, 2005

a last drink with no ice

mystes posted:

She's such a blatant sociopath my god why the gently caress does anyone listen to anything she says

people listen to sociopaths all the time, it’s arguably characteristic of sociopathy

raminasi
Jan 25, 2005

a last drink with no ice
i won a poker tournament of my friend’s buddies once due to a combination of luck and inexperience-induced unpredictability, it was pretty funny. i just did whatever and by the time any individual one of them figured out i didn’t actually have some advanced strategy he’d lost his chips.

raminasi
Jan 25, 2005

a last drink with no ice

Expo70 posted:

when they have pissing contests of facts to feel more manly and then a tiny girl chimes in with actual technical knowledge, they both look sheepish and say things like "yes, yes, of course" clearing their throats and looking awkwardly.

the fragility of the world's many dads is just too much fun.

are the dads actually doing anything to harm you or do you just like making them feel bad for fun

raminasi
Jan 25, 2005

a last drink with no ice

Expo70 posted:

50% rear end in a top hat 50% daddy-issues, 100% gremlin

you could just not do the rear end in a top hat thing. then you wouldn’t be an rear end in a top hat. that’s usually an option.

raminasi
Jan 25, 2005

a last drink with no ice
my shopping app desire is for something that will buzz my phone whenever i enter a bookstore and tell me which books on my goodreads "want to read" list are available in the store

raminasi
Jan 25, 2005

a last drink with no ice

Sagebrush posted:

Was koalas march the abuser who said "you have to believe women, which means believe me," or were they the "I have created a fund for goons of color in need, and I am a goon of color in need of a gaming laptop, so I'm taking the money?" Or both?

Absolutely deranged, but I kinda respect the audacity

iirc the laptop money thing isn't as funny as is generally imagined because she did it with the full consent of everyone who donated to the fund

raminasi
Jan 25, 2005

a last drink with no ice

mediaphage posted:

aren’t the big ones supposed to have been rejiggered to be earthquake…resistant by this point or something? that’s what sf people always yell about on twitter

if i’m reading the article correctly the point is that many such buildings have not been so rejiggered and the city is trying to figure out the best way to inform people and/or enforce retrofits

raminasi
Jan 25, 2005

a last drink with no ice

post hole digger posted:

do college radio stations still exist, i used to listen to ucsb's and sjsu's a lot

yeah but a lot of them are internet streaming only. not the cool ones like kalx though. nothing beats driving around west berkeley at two in the morning listening to whale sounds or whatever

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

raminasi
Jan 25, 2005

a last drink with no ice

Luigi Thirty posted:

there is literally documentation of this in there somewhere

that’s the funniest part of it to me

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply