bogomipz

>"But I do think there's been nothing but recklessness in terms of what has already been accomplished."

Could you elaborate on this? Specifically which accomplishment(s) you consider to be reckless.

That actor is not a celebrity though. In fact she is practically anonymous. She was not hired to raise the visibility of the product or lend it credibility via her celebrity. A large majority of people in the US would be quite familiar with Tom Brady, Giselle Bundchen, Shaquille O'Neal etc. Almost nobody could name who the actor is that plays the woman in the Progressive ads without Googling it.

Honestly it sounds like you've drunk the kool-aid.

>"The problem lies in the fact that there's no one single definition of who "the customer" is ..."

From the post that we are commenting on here:

>"... show that company executives, including former CEO Jeff Bezos, knowingly made changes to the e-commerce platform that boosted profits while harming consumers and sellers, and making the site less usable."

It's pretty clear who the customer were here. It's literally all the parties that were not Amazon.

Something that "gets cited in meetings" yet not applied in practice pretty much supports it being little more than meme status.

Which is in interesting because Amazon's "Leadership Principles" a are well-known and well-publicized part of Amazon's culture. Number 1 on that list is of course "Customer Obsession", which states:

>"Customer Obsession: Leaders start with the customer and work backwards. They work vigorously to earn and keep customer trust. Although leaders pay attention to competitors, they obsess over customers."[1]

It's probably no surprise that this is little more than a meme whose sole purpose is to be ceremonially regurgitated during job interviews.

[1] https://www.amazon.jobs/content/en/our-workplace/leadership-...

The statistic for companies that successfully emerge from Chapter 11 is pretty low. It's less than 10%.[1]

[1] https://seekingalpha.com/article/4472388-what-is-chapter-11-...

I am curious has anyone subscribed to codecrafters.io and if so what was your impression of the service?

Can anyone speculate on the timing? If it's something more than coincidence what could it be?

Or you know you could also just put a sign on the door. However that wouldn't have generated the publicity that announcing it on Instagram has so obviously(and calculatedly) created.

> As it posted in an Instagram Story earlier this week: “We love food and drink photos (clearly) … but the TikToks and Instagram photoshoots have gotten a bit out of control for us."

The influencer culture had gotten so unbearable that they had to take to Instagram and get the message out. You can't make this shit up.

>"Ever wondered how these “small group of extremists” came about holding the entire country hostage? That’s because US nation state apparatus decided to overthrow democratically elected government there for their own interests."

Honestly it doesn't sound like you've studied very much then. I would recommend you read up Ali Shariati who was the revolution's ideologue and someone who was extremely influential amongst those university students of 1979. He was also very influential among younger clerics as well as with Khomeini himself. His philosophy was that society would be guided by the intelligentsia instead of the clergy. His political philosophy was one that was intended to lead to a freer society. And indeed in the immediate aftermath of the revolution democratic institutions called "shuras" and "komitehs" arose which gave workers and the impoverished an economic and political voice. These were considered a threat to clerical power however and so power was consolidated and the revolution was highjacked. Your parroting of the just "blame the west" narrative is just plain lazy.

No they have not. There is the odd book and author that are quality but it seems to be the exception. You can almost always guarantee:

The formatting is atrocious. You will regularly get blurry and illegible images for things like terminal screen shots or else just regular text on a white page that is supposed to be terminal output.

Books often to appear to have not been proof read.

There are regularly pages that have one or two sentences on them. Presumably this is done in order to pad the book length.

As a company they are pure garbage. There is probably no way any independent publisher can put out that volume of books and maintain any level of quality. I believe their business model is simply to flood search results with their titles. In a given year they will put many titles on the exact same subject or tech stack.

>"On the one hand, airports need to make money ..."

Commercial airports in the US are owned by a local, state or regional public entity.[1] They need to be self-sustaining and break even but they don't need to be profitable in the same sense as a private business.

Further, passengers at these airports pay a significant amount of "taxes and fees" on their fares that go to support operations at these airports [2]. These include a passenger facility fee, a segment tax(one per takeoff/landing), a Sept 11th Fee for security and Federal ticket tax(pays the FAA.)

[1] https://yourmileagemayvary.net/2022/08/14/who-owns-airports/

[2] https://www.farecompare.com/news/airline-ticket-taxes-and-fe...

The article states:

>"Tesla says there are "two types of camera recordings that are eligible to be transmitted from your vehicle to Tesla: Safety Event and Fleet Learning camera recordings." The Safety Event recordings last up to 30 seconds and are "captured only if a serious safety event occurs such as a vehicle collision or airbag deployment," Tesla says."

The article states that they could see people doing their laundry. Presumably because the washer/dryer was in the garage or else the car was parked in front of a laundromat. Neither of these sounds like a Safety Event or a Fleet Learning So why would allow a video from a parked car in a garage or in front of a laundromat ever be transmitted?

There's nothing euphemistic about it at all. It bizarre to me that you seem to be going out of your way for specific word selection but then you go on to use those words incorrectly. It makes for confusing reading which is where my original question came. There's nothing "hostile" about asking for clarification.

I'm sorry but "the natives"? That's a hollow cliche. What does that mean? Just native New Yorkers? Because it's a city of transplants and immigrants. Tense relations between citizens and NYPD is not new. See Amodou Diallo, the 2004 Republican National Convention protests, "Stop and Frisk", Eric Garner, the list spans many decades. People also realize that realize that crime and public safety are a concern and that police have an important job. The tension between police and residents has been a near constant for decades. It ebbs and flows and there's fundamentally no more or and no less respect now.

Even if taken as a general "sense of loss" what did they lose? They didn't lose anything. They weren't "defunded", there was no structural reform or consents decrees. The protests stopped and it went back to business as usual for them. In fact as of last week they exceeded their already notorious annual overtime budget by 100 million dollars![1]][2]

Again what loss do they to avenge exactly?

[1] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-03-20/nypd-blow...

[2] https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2021-nyc-police-overtime-...

"Revanchist"? What territory did they ever posses and lose? What exactly would be the revanche here?

"Revanchist"? What territory did they ever posses and lose? What would be the revanche?

Are you referring to the scene where Sy Richardson admonishes them before giving them their methadone doses? That's a methadone clinic not not a pharmacy and he's a public health/social worker.

>"And after that banking rules became a lot stricter to reduce the risk of this happening again."

Except that Dodd-Frank legislation was continuously chipped away at, ultimately resulting in the 2018 "Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act in 2018."[1].

This 2018 bit of legislation is notable in that it completely loosened the regulatory regime and oversight of small and midsize banks - the exact profile of institutions being discussed here!

Specifically this new legislation reduced the number of banks that were subject to stronger federal oversight. Under the Dodd-Frank legislation, banks with assets of more than $50 billion were subject to stress tests and higher capital requirements.

The newer 2018 legislation contained a section that basically eliminated that stronger regulation for banks with assets between $50 billion and $100 billion and moved the goal posts of "discretionary oversight" out to financial institutions with assets between $100 billion and $250 billion instead.

It's fascinating that you are arguing points without seeming to have an understanding of all that has changed since Dodd/Frank 13 year ago. You seem to be completely unaware of the developments since 2018 i.e the exact things that enabled the developments of the last two weeks.

[1] https://www.investopedia.com/terms/d/dodd-frank-financial-re...

>"It's extremely unlikely anyone, anywhere, would be at risk of losing any deposits - insured or uninsured - in this day and age in the US regardless of the FDIC's 'new' position."

When IndyMac Bank failed in the 2008 financial crisis, the FDIC paid uninsured depositors 50 cents of every dollar[1][2][3]. I would say that very much of "this day and age."

From the FDIC's IndyMac Resolution:

"If it is determined that you have uninsured funds, the FDIC will generate and mail to you a Receiver Certificate. This certificate entitles you to share proportionately in any funds recovered through the disposal of the assets of IndyMac Bank, F.S.B. This means that you will eventually recover some of your uninsured funds. The FDIC declared a 50% advance dividend for uninsured deposits."[2]

It's bizarre to argue that what was literally an exceptional decision(SRE) by the FDIC could not have been otherwise.

[1] https://www.ocregister.com/2009/07/13/indymac-customers-stil...

[2] https://www.fdic.gov/resources/resolutions/bank-failures/fai...

[3] https://www.brookings.edu/2023/03/21/how-does-deposit-insura...

If your payroll plus all other outgoing expenses was greater than $250K then no you would not be able to "make payroll just fine." This is simple math. Arguing against basic math is absurd.

I'm not sure how you reconcile acknowledging the reality of companies not being able to make payroll for two weeks and also calling it a "canard" in back to back sentences. A "fake canard" would be a double negative by the way ;)

If you reread the thread and the context of what I was responding to it was the OP stating "It's not clear anyone would have lost anything at all ..."

Perhaps you are well-off but losing a pay check for couple of weeks has real consequences for lots of people.

None of SVB, First Republic or Signature were retail banks either they were commercial banks. Regardless nowhere have I seen it reported that the current sequence of events is somehow a "retail banking crisis". It's amusing that you feel an investment bank somehow shouldn't be included in a discussion about a potential banking crisis. You might want to read up on the 2008 financial crisis and shadow banking. Bear Stearns and AIG weren't banks at all.

I provided numerous points that show how the events of the last two weeks are of significance but it seems you want to cherry pick just one. At any rate, all four of those banks were rescued. The FDIC arranging for a healthy bank to take over an unhealthy bank is a form of rescue. This type of rescue has roots in the 2008 crisis. It's interesting how confident you seem to be in your assertion that all of this is non-issue yet your comments indicate you might not understand very much about banking or the banking system.

>"Did they need to? It's not clear anyone would have lost anything at all because depositors are senior to equity and bond holders."

Do you realize how many tech companies used SVB as their primary banking facility? There were plenty of companies who would not have made pay role. So yes real regular people would have been affected.

>"It's extremely unlikely anyone, anywhere, would be at risk of losing any deposits - insured or uninsured - in this day and age in the US regardless of the FDIC's 'new' position."

The FDIC invoked a "systemic risk exception" in order to make SVB and Signature Bank depositors whole. Federal law requires the FDIC to resolve failed banks by choosing the method the least costly to the Deposit Insurance Fund. Here "resolved" means making only insured depositors whole. The only exception to this is the systemic risk exception. This is law not just some shit you can make up.

>"The only real issue at banks right now is that they're in long-term government debt which has significant mark to market losses "

Uh no, the issue that is that there's a lot of uncertainty. I don't think nobody really knows the extent of it at this point because a lot of midsize banks haven't really been under strong regulatory scrutiny until very recently. A crisis of confidence is still a crisis. A crisis of confidence is precisely what causes a run on banks.

>"The q4 numbers came in showing the US economy was still expanding and now those same papers are telling me we're in a banking crisis on the basis of like two and a half banks, with SVB and CS both being fully rescued."

Why would GDP(a lagging indicator) and a current event(a wave of banks over the last two week) be mutually exclusive?

You also seem to have overlooked some significant details and context. To date there have been four bank rescues not two - Signature Bank, First Republic, SVB and Credit Suisse.

The Credit Suisse collapse resulted in 17 billion in AT1 bonds being written down.[1].

SVB’s uninsured deposits(anything over 250k) accounted for 94% of its total deposits and the FDIC took the extraordinary step of insuring those deposit after the fact.

We witnessed the US Treasury Secretary this week suggest that the government would backstop all uninsured deposits at smaller banks.[2]. She then later had to walk that back.

The First Republic rescue saw three of the largest US banks depositing 30 billion dollars into it in order to prop it up.

[1] https://www.reuters.com/business/finance/credit-suisse-write...

[2] https://www.reuters.com/markets/us/treasurys-yellen-says-com...

No, this is not correct. The term "Fed Rate" is not correct or meaningful either. There are two different things - the Fed Funds Rate and the Discount Rate(also known as the Discount Window.) The Fed Funds Rate is "the rate" being discussed when the Fed raises interest rates[1][2]. The Fed Funds Rate is the interest rates banks charge each other to borrow money overnight to meet their Federal Reserve requirements. When it becomes more expensive for banks to borrow money from each other to meet their overnight Federal Reserve requirements it makes credit more expensive for both the banks and the consumers of a bank's loan products.

Banks can also borrow directly from the Federal Reserve via a facility called the discount window or Fed Discount rate[1]. Banks for a long time have avoided borrowing directly from the Fed as it has had something of stigma attached to it.[3] That has changed recently however(2007-2008.) The Discount Rate is always more than the Fed Funds Rate.

>"Every time the FED lends someone money, it basically prints it."

This is not correct either. The Fed maintains a balance sheet with assets and liabilities similar to a corporation [4]. One of those assets is money they have lent to other financial institutions. They do this by crediting or debiting the bank's account at the Fed. You seem to be confusing the Discount Rate with Quantitative Easing.

[1] https://www.investopedia.com/terms/f/federalfundsrate.asp

[2] https://www.investopedia.com/terms/f/federal_discount_rate.a...

[3] https://www.federalreserve.gov/econres/notes/feds-notes/stig...

[4] https://www.investopedia.com/terms/f/fed-balance-sheet.asp

The way I interpreted "households" in the statement was that it was referring to the regular folks who are employed by many VC-backed start ups that banked with SVB. Employees at tech companies in the US get paid twice a month(generally the 1st and the 15th.) This backstopping while certainly bailing out VCs yes, also ensures that regular people working for those VC-backed startups will get their paycheck this week.