skwirl

Ok but did you really not address the fact that Signature Bank literally collapsed today? You know that is a different bank, correct? Did you see the stocks and sector ETFs for regional banks last week?

The people I lost respect for was a large portion of HN commenters calling on bank depositors - largely small businesses - to be snuffed out because there was a run on their bank. The comments have largely been factually wrong, misleading, and downright psychopathic. I am glad our government is not controlled by such people, but I question the value of this forum going forward given the large portion of it that is so incredibly toxic and so poorly informed.

Did you miss the part of this press release where they announced that Signature Bank collapsed today? That makes it pretty clear that the contagion was real. Treasury’s actions make it abundantly clear as well.

I think you would do well to not try to instantly bucket people into "my political tribe" or "the enemy political tribe." Not only is it lazy and harmful, you just aren't good at it. Plenty of people on the left would describe the relationship between members of congress and banking institutions to be corrupt.

I don't see where you get "government oversight is bad" from anything I said. I strongly believe that we should have strict government oversight of deposit accounts and that people should be able to have faith in the banking system. I don't think it's depositors fault that banks lobby to weaken this regulation and that the government goes along with it.

I agree that we don't know if the weakened regulations caused this - it's possible the regulators already had the tools in their belt they needed to prevent this and were asleep at the wheel. We will find out eventually.

If SVB collapsed because of corruption in the federal government, then that just makes a stronger case for federal institutions doing whatever they need to do to make the depositors whole. The solution to failing to protect depositors is not to snuff them out, it's to make things right.

You are making the same kind of argument that people asking for SVB depositors to be made whole are making.

> Investors like Ackman and Cuban seem so concerned about payroll for tech workers.

They weren’t calling for a bailout of SVB. They were calling for protection of depositors, which is what Yellen is trying to make happen.

> FDIC insurance is not infinite. Not understanding that is no fault of the rest of society.

I hope you realize FDIC insurance isn’t even guaranteed to be $250k. The FDIC is funded by member fees and can only cover a very small amount of “insured” losses. If it goes beyond that, depositors would need a bailout.

> Did they help depositors that lost money in the last 500+ bank collapses?

Yes. Anything else?

FDIC insurance limits are set to protect individuals. $250k is nothing for a business. Roku would have needed 8000 bank accounts to hold their cash at 250k per account. You are basically telling businesses to not use the banking system outside of the too big to fail banks that we know the government will backstop. If this is the message, we should all run on any bank other than the top 4.

By the way, the FDIC tries to recover everything, even though it isn’t promised. They are going to need to to keep faith in the banking system. And your $250k “insurance” isn’t even guaranteed because the FDIC is funded by member fees and can only cover a small amount of losses.

The bank is already shut down, dead, gone, past tense. It's shareholders are wiped out, as they should be. Nobody is calling to save a bank that doesn't exist anymore. We're talking about the depositors. I think this has been confusing to a lot of people.

I'm not, because I know the federal regulators have strict requirements for these banks and will bail them out if they did somehow fail for being a "systemically important bank." I'm not qualified to evaluate the soundness of a bank, and neither are the rating agencies (as 2008 showed), so I'm going to go with the banks I know the federal government will backstop.

Oh no people might continue putting money in bank deposit accounts at banks regulators have said are solid, we definitely don't want people doing things so totally unnecessary and crazy.

I don't think many people are qualified to assess the risk of a bank, and I don't think it's reasonable to expect founders to be able to do this. It's a bit like expecting people to inspect bridges before they drive over them (or companies to inspect the bridges that lead to their office buildings). We expect regulators to keep basic infrastructure working - be it financial or physical. As I said above, the State of California found this bank to be "in sound financial condition prior to March 9, 2023." The company was meeting its obligations with regulators. It then suffered a crisis of confidence which led to a bank run, which no bank can survive.

We also learned in 2008 that the private credit rating agencies cannot effectively assess the risk of what banks are doing either, despite that ostensibly being their entire area of expertise. So paying a company to assess the risk is out as a realistic option.

This was one of the 20 largest banks in the United States. If you can't trust the soundness of deposit accounts at top 20 banks that have been operating without issue for decades, your only rational choice is to move your deposits into the four "too big to fail" banks that you know the government will bail out in the event they collapse. Nothing else is safe.

The point is that everyone should bank with four too-big-to-fail banks and all other banks in the US should be shut down? That's certainly A Take. I thought we wanted to do away with too-big-to-fail banks, not permanently cement them into place.

People are misdirecting their (rightful) ire over 2008 bank bailouts at depositors, which apparently is because they don't like some of those depositors for unrelated reasons. Nobody is defending the bank, which already has been shut down and its shareholders rightfully wiped out. The idea that backstopping depositors is moral hazard is preposterous and honestly embarrassing on a platform where people should know better. This is a bank that was in compliance with state and federal regulations, and according to California's regulatory agency, was "in sound financial condition prior to March 9, 2023."[1]

Bank deposit accounts are supposed to be boring financial infrastructure, not a source of risk. If you destroy faith in the US banking system among depositors, this particular bank failure will be the least of our problems.

[1] https://dfpi.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/337/2023/03/DFP...

>No, you should insulate yourself from that risk, either by spreading out your cash between multiple institutions, or obtaining deposit insurance beyond the government's, or (most likely) both.

Why would I do that when I can bank with a too-big-to-fail bank like JP Morgan Chase, Citibank, Wells Fargo, or Bank of America?

Within the constraints of technical systems, it's pretty obvious. It's not a topic that you can really bullshit - things work or they don't. It makes mistakes sometimes and what it says won't be consistent with other things it's saying or that you know to be true. If you ask it if it's sure, it often will correct itself. Worst case, you verify with other sources and/or try it out.

It's not really any worse than asking someone knowledgable about a subject face-to-face. They know a lot, but they can be mistaken about things. At some point you will tease out the misunderstanding.

The best way to understand the value of the tool is to try it for yourself.

>Of course, we shouldn't rely on chatGPT. It has give me wrong and insecure code before. However, its a nice tool to have around

You 100% should verify any code generated by ChatGPT - but this goes for any code found off the internet. I have come across bad Stack Overflow code committed to codebases before.

Sure, it's an unending stream of things, but here are some recent examples from my history:

-Had it extract some gnarly string manipulation logic in a MySQL where clause into a function. It wrote clean, well commented code, and even explained what a regex did in a comment.

-Had it explain to me how macOS plist files worked, how to view them, how to edit them

-Asked it what some lines in an ssh config file did and it clearly explained it to me

-Dropped in some XML from a spring applicationcontext file that was doing something I didn't quite understand and it explained it to me. Asked how I would change something about it and it told me how, explained how it worked, and provided example xml

-Gave it a SQL Server CREATE TABLE statement and asked it to create the equivalent CREATE TABLE statement for MySQL 8, which it successfully did

My only complaint has been how sometimes the system has been unavailable. I now pay for the $20/month subscription and that has been resolved.

I am puzzled by all the hot takes stating that ChatGPT (and other similar tools) outputs garbage and is being "discredited" when I have personally found it to be an incredibly useful tool that I have been using daily pretty much since it was first released. The only thing being discredited, in my mind, are the people who rush to be contrarian about something they don't actually seem to understand or have taken any time to use.

I don’t know what this has to do with what I posted. I never said Twitter was doing well under Musk. You are shadowboxing.

Losing money in 2021 for a tech company in Twitter’s position is dire. That was the most intense boom year the industry has experienced since at least the 90s, maybe ever. Meta had all time high gross revenue and net income, both about 35% higher than in 2020. They haven’t lost money and are still reducing headcount by 12%. Twitter’s layoffs were bound to be much greater.

I am not a fan of Elon Musk, for what it’s worth, and I’m sorry that you felt the need to make this some kind of tribal battle instead of a productive discussion. Twitter’s financial issues were well known before Musk became involved, and it is widely agreed that he greatly overpaid for the company. Nothing he has done with the company should impress anyone at this point. The point stands that the company was going to be experiencing major pain even without him.

Given twitter’s massive headcount increases in the previous couple of years and the decline in ad spend that came last year, the previous executive team was about to fall off their tightrope. I’m sure they would have handled it with much better communication while treating employees better, though.

Mods need to edit the headline of this to match the title of the page. Nothing stating or implying this headline appear in the article and it feels like an attempt to troll HN.

This sounds like a pretty serious misunderstanding of what LINQ is. LINQ is a general query capability of which there are multiple providers - one of them is for SQL, which may be what you are thinking LINQ is, but another is for in-memory enumerables ("LINQ to Objects"). LINQ to Objects and Java Streams actually are intended to solve the exact same problem.

If you think Streams API statements are elegant compared to LINQ, I again don't think you are familiar with LINQ. C# has language features Java does not have which usually makes LINQ much more succinct. For example, imagine a list of order items where each item has a double "Price" property. If you want to sum the price of all the items, here's how you'd do it in C# vs Java:

C#: double sum = items.Sum(item => item.Price);

Java: double sum = items.stream().mapToDouble(Item::getPrice).sum();

Java lacks extension methods, so stream() must first be called to get at any stream methods. Worse, Java has generic type erasure, so I have to to call "mapToDouble" to get this hacky concoction called a "DoubleStream" which actually has the sum method.

Not the end of the world, for sure, but definitely crappy compared to LINQ. There are lots of other irritating problems, such as Stream itself not being enumerable and the need for calling collect with a Collector.

>It feels like everything is broken in the Java web-dev ecosystem, except spring.

"Except Spring?" Spring IS the modern Java web-dev ecosystem. You can't write it off as a small exception. With Spring Boot it is very easy to get something working quickly.

It sounds like you may be suffering from the Paradox of Choice when it comes to the broad Java ecosystem(s). For new projects, just pretend nothing exists except Spring Boot and use annotation/java config for dependency management.

There's obviously a lot of legacy Java out there, but it's so massively popular that there's an immense amount of greenfield development going on as well. Don't take jobs working on Java EE stuff unless nowhere else will hire you and/or they are paying you a massive amount of money to do it.

* This other JVM language has it too. Groovy is not Java.

Java does "have it," as in Java has streams. It's pretty crappy compared to Linq due to language limitations but it's a lot better than nothing.

I feel like this is a pretty important comment that busts a popular myth about Twitter and Ruby. The notion that Ruby was a poor choice even for a young Twitter that hadn't hit scale makes Ruby (or at least, late 00s/early 10s Ruby) look even worse than it already does.