bentlegen

> It's actually humorous that most tech "social media" like HN, Reddit, Digg, and so on were much busier back when most of us were in offices, because we all would bide our days doing anything but work.

Do you have a source on this? I’m both curious and skeptical.

(And ironically, for many in Europe and Eastern NA/SA it’s the work day right now.)

I hang out in those rooms too. My experience doesn’t mean good ideas don’t or can’t happen there. But I personally feel more “creatively productive” when I can read the room and gauge folks’ expressions/enthusiasm.

People are different. What works for me may not work for you, your team, company culture, etc.

Seems off topic, but the equity I’ve been compensated with has been sufficiently worthwhile and I don’t feel hard done by. YMMV.

I had a single casual conversation spontaneously in the office that directly led to a million dollar product getting created. It wasn’t even a “bouncing idea” talk, it came from nerds nerding-out at the lunch table.

That one example sold me.

Perhaps it could have happened over Zoom, but my experience is that post-scheduled meeting most people drop off instantly — they’re not interested in any casual conversation. Most people say a word or two about the weather or their sports team then jump into their next Zoom call.

(Edit: note, I’m pro-working from home, but I don’t agree that you can 1:1 recreate in-person ideation/spontaneity over a screen with scheduled meetings. Based on the downvotes I guess that’s a controversial opinion in 2023. Wild.)

How you went from “seems plausible” to “this man must believe Cocaine Bear is happening repeatedly” is an impressive leap.

Aside, I think your post highlights why commenting on the internet is so painful. All I‘ve done is highlight a factual anecdote w/ attribution, without speaking negatively of anyone, and you saw it necessary to denigrate my intelligence.

I think your point about Glassdoor reviews vs. rideshare cancellations works fine without the accompanying commentary.

Given that Uber was once caught booking (and canceling) thousands of fake rides on Lyft -- seems perfectly plausible.

https://money.cnn.com/2014/08/11/technology/uber-fake-ride-r...

We created a society where homeless people have so few means, they turn to public transit just to have a roof over their heads and stay warm. Then we lament how public transit has become “undesirable”, never recognizing the active steps we take to make it so.

Same. I feel it breaks the immersion, if only briefly. And I agree with the above commenter “how did this not get dinged a little bit for this”.

Ok, let’s say instead he decides to label every journalist that published a “pro-vaccine” article with a “has published articles that promote vaccines” tag on their profile instead. He makes no modifications to anybody else’s profile.

This statement is factually correct, does not infringe on anybody’s rights, and you’d have to be naive if it was not done with some kind of purpose.

To be clear, I am not accusing Elon of being transphobic or promoting an anti-vax agenda. I am highlighting how “it’s factually true” does not mean it is appropriate.

Here’s an example of a factual label: I was born a biological man. If I choose to omit my gender from my profile, and Elon insists that my biological gender must be present because of some comments I made — and only on my particular profile, of course — he is both factually correct and executing a kind of political reprisal.

It’s the same thing. It doesn’t matter if the label is factual or not. It’s the intimidation intent behind the label.

Elon is not highlighting, for example, how much funding Tesla receives. He’s selectively applying labels with a political calculus. But I believe you already know that.

I decided to quit Twitter after Elon decided it was appropriate for him to deface the public profile of a national news institution (the CBC).

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/04/musk-feuds-with-...

If you upset Twitter’s boss, there is a non-zero chance he will retaliate by using his mod powers to customize your profile to say what he wants. This is undisputably true.

The old guard may have banned accounts for reasons you may have disagreed with, but imagine if they went in and wrote “huge loser” on someone’s profile in a way you could never remove unless you capitulated to the CEO’s personal demands.

I don’t understand how anyone can rationally claim that this system is “better”, unless you’re a partisan who’s happy as long as the victims continue to be people you disagree with.

I don’t think I’ve mischaracterized anything, unless you’re telling me that you didn’t mean to paint this effort as meaningless posturing by ineffective environmentalists that would only have negative results.

If nothing would make you happier, make that point in your comment. “Maybe this will make a difference in 20 years” or “nuclear advancement is what we need” would completely change the tone.

So because nuclear or other solutions can’t “immediately” be stepped up (debatable, but it doesn’t matter), we should not bother to create the circumstances in which they would become beneficial?

This go-nowhere attitude and is why people can’t take fossil fuel apologists seriously.

I am not a particular fan of Cohen’s music, but as far as humans go, I think he led a fascinating life. He was a poet, a novelist, a singer/songwriter … and he found success (and failure) multiple times at very different stages of his life.

I recently watched “Hallelujah: Leonard Cohen, a Journey, a Song” (2022), and would recommend it as a starting place to anyone who’s at least vaguely familiar with the titular song.

https://m.imdb.com/title/tt7600742/

I see that “Musk takes editorial control of users’ content by banning URLs he doesn’t like” isn’t in your list of improvements.

Given your username is “Freedom2”, I don’t understand how “longer tweets” makes it worth it. To me it’s all worthless if you can’t even post your words.

It could be this website in 12 months or a few years. Or someone else. Doesn’t matter.

To me your reaction is like dismissing version 1 of the iPhone as a nothingburger because it’s battery isn’t good enough to be practical at launch.

It doesn’t matter. Given enough time and progress, it will be indistinguishable.

And theatres need attendees, streaming services need plays, tourist attractions need eyeballs, etc. Just because a publication needs “clicks” does not make their argument invalid, or that they can’t achieve that viewership without debasing themselves.

It’s okay to be slightly provocative to get attention to a valid story, IMO. At no point does Vox tell me I too can run my own news publication and become influential like them; if they did then I think it’s fair to doubt them and their motivations.

Wow, $2 is a good deal. I feel I paid that little to start, but now NYT charges me $20 CAD a month. I regularly debate whether it’s worth it or not, and it definitely stops me from subscribing to other publications.

Re: “news companies should write articles that are worth reading in full”.

Tell me: why is the first, highest-upvoted comment to every paywalled article posted on HN, actually just an archive.xx link that defeats that paywall? Coincidence?

It strikes me that writing quality content is not actually the challenge; people here certainly read paywalled content, for free, on the regular. Perhaps monetization is actually just really hard.

In terms of real dollars, those bonds will be worth less in 10 years because of inflation.

You’re correct in highlighting that if they fronted the cash now the bonds would be less, but it is simultaneously true that they will be worth less “2023 dollars” in 10 years.

We are currently working with 2023 dollars.

You’re making this sound like some Ocean’s 11-level heist, and then discounting the premise you’ve created as being absurd.

It doesn’t have to be that complicated. Perhaps he saw that the bank was in trouble and made a decision to sell shares when the company was at a 52 week low. His calculus could just be: “with the information I possess, this price could go a lot lower.” He may not have foreseen an insolvency event, or perhaps he knew it was a risk and he sought to hedge it. Or maybe he just sold it randomly at a low price … because.

I’m not a lawyer, but it’s unclear to me - a random internet observer - that anyone performed anything illegal. It strikes me more as a bet gone colossally wrong, basic human mismanagement, capitalism in action, etc.

I think there’s confusion in this thread, as some are advocating that depositors be made fully whole, and some are interpreting Yellen’s comments to mean that’s what will happen.

According to Bloomberg, the CEO sold 3.6 million dollars worth of shares days before insolvency. The sale was scheduled back on January 26th.

Around the same time, analysts were commenting negatively about SVB’s earnings and liquidity position.

Please correct me if I’ve misinterpreted.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-03-10/svb-chief...

https://seekingalpha.com/article/4573087-svb-financial-30-pe...

I didn’t say that? I asked, what’s to disincentivize executives if the Fed backstopped all depositors money, now and perhaps in perpetuity? (Forgive me if I misinterpreted your position here. I have also edited this post for clarity.)

The C-suite paid themselves millions of dollars via bonuses and stock sales right before insolvency. Executives got paid. What’s to stop future bankers from running the same playbook? (We can debate that this the stock sale was premeditated/signaled months in advance, but the stock had already declined 80% from its 2021 peak and they surely knew about the tough liquidity position months ago — external observers drew attention to this back in January).

Note, one of the SVB executives was the former Lehman Brothers CFO in 2007, just one year prior to that institution’s collapse in 2008. What did he learn, exactly, besides how to get out in time?

https://www.foxbusiness.com/economy/silicon-valley-bank-exec...

This has literally been an issue with banks for all of modern society. FDIC insurance did not materialize randomly.

There are many answers: multiple bank accounts, holding other securities like treasuries (which are guaranteed by the US government), bonds, stocks, etc.

As an individual, I am keenly aware of deposit insurance - it’s much lower where I live, in Canada - and as such it’s common to spread your savings among multiple banking institutions to ensure you are covered (and to remove risk where any individual bank is impacted, even temporarily).

Are consumers smart for doing that? Or are they dumb for even bothering, since it sounds like they should expect to be made whole regardless? Should consumer deposits not benefit similarly if these SVB corporate deposits are made whole? What dollar limit would you recommend the FDIC or CDIC (Canada) insure going forward?

(I ask because you comment on YC asking to advance banking regulation elsewhere in this thread, and I’m wondering what a good number should be going forward. Like, should the insured amount be $10mm, or $50mm, or what?)

Garry I have a question (and this is not intended to be snarky).

Why should a company, perhaps a slower and more risk-averse company who intentionally chose a different, safer banking institution to do business with, do they not get to benefit from their discretion in choosing that banking partner? One could argue that choice put them at a disadvantage against their fast-moving competitors, who chose fast-moving “corporate infrastructure” like SVB.

If bailouts like this take place, how do those companies ever benefit from being prudent? Should nobody bother?

(FWIW, this is just a thought exercise, I am not opposed to the petition.)