wstuartcl

Aside from the main topic but related to the books, wtf happened to howstuffworks.com? "Pisces and Taurus Compatibility in Relationships: What You Need to Know" Did he sell off this domain before his death or what is going on?

the tests were for these local (metal direct connect ssds). The issue is not network overhead -- its that just like everything else in cloud the performance of 10 years ago was used as the baseline that carries over today with upcharges to buy back the gains.

there is a reason why vcpu performance is still locked to the typical core from 10 years ago when every core on a machine today in those data scenters is 3-5x or more speed basis. Its cause they can charge you for 5x the cores to get that gain.

Cough wells fargo, cough

yeah in that regard SVB also lost hundreds of billions on trades it could have made optimally in the market with those funds (looking with hindsight).

Should you look at the opportunity costs for lost potential gains in this scenario -- yeah. Does it "lose money" -- no, not unless you are forced to sell before maturity.

lost earnings are a wish for what could have been, not lost in reality.

A ton of capital at the ready to offer bridge loans at shark rates or for blood equity for companies panicking and impacted by the same act of gathering those funds out of SVB to crash it seems like motive -- only time will tell.

The FDIC charter: The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) is an independent agency created by the Congress to maintain stability and public confidence in the nation’s financial system. The FDIC insures deposits; examines and supervises financial institutions for safety, soundness, and consumer protection; makes large and complex financial institutions resolvable; and manages receiverships.

SVB was a bank that mostly served corporate operations accounts for tehc nad healthcare startups and small businesses. People were not banking there for high returns. This is not at all about risky investments (ffs the bank liquidity crunch came from long term bonds being too illiquid -- not exactly exotic asset management). The accounts impacted are mostly payroll, daily operating accounts (for expenses/manufacturing expenses/real estate lease payments etc).

The bank managers and investors are not being bailed out -- they have already lost everything.

You seem to be attaching some kind of anger for some ill conceived and non existant "happy go lucky risk wall street bet" type of activity, when this is about buisnesses losing their operating accounts who did nothing wrong except for have accounts at this bank instead of the next bank over.

The other good news is that it will probably net out to costing little to nothing in the long term as they had enough assets to cover liabilities -- it was a liquidity crunch. Seems very much relevant to what the FDIC was created for -- to make depositors whole and stop contagion. It would be different if the bank was not properly asset backed.

yeah I think there are two things that will be interesting here. The real detailed timeline. How much Thiel's cohorts jumped into offer bridge loans or stopgaps to impacted companies for insane rates/equity.

IMHO this feels like a small problem that was turned into a crashed bank by targeted withdraws -- with the goal being blood in the water for the industry so the companies and investors that yanked out could clean up.

this is why imho I see the pull out of the clients especially those that happened before the sale offer even came to term as an orchestrated ploy to tank the bank and then be in a position to offer shark bridge loans to those impacted. These were not naive clients making the move early -- and to me it seems less to do about the actual bank asset state and more to do with wanting blood in the water for wringing out equity and loan shark rates on those bridge offers.

it's good then that the funds to support the deposits are coming from the bank funded fdic fund not taxes then.

They had 13b in cash going into this year and other highly liquid assets, those evaporated as the draw downs happened. Its not like they tucked away all assets into 10 year lockups (or higher risk loans). Even the bonds they did lock up -- in what would be considered 99% "normal" markets given the last few decades a sell off of those bonds would not have been highly problematic. It became problematic when they were so low return needing to be sold to reblalance the 10/90 rule when market rates were much better and they needed to be discounted due to the huge rate hikes.

SVB was pretty much considered the "boyscouts" of the industry and in normal circumstances they took a super conservative placement of the deposits. The only thing they could have done better was to (what would have normally been considered) overly hedge the bonds reducing their return even more.

I personally think they were too transparent with the liquidity crunch, and the investors and their companies that pulled out 20-30b before they even could execute the sell probably saw the ability to crash the bank and offer shark hooked bridge funding to the competitive companies left in the lurch. Its not like these folks were naive clients -- imho they were looking to do damage and get blood returns/equity on those bridge funding after the fall.

I am really enjoying elixir/pheonix/liveview -- feels super fast to poc stuff out and also is not throw away as the system scales unbelievably well.

The also have some end of life blogs -- here one is from a defunct team.

https://blog.twitter.com/engineering

I have not been following this closely but I thought most all of the quantum safe algorithms that had been proposed so far had been found lacking for traditional attacks very soon after they where held up as a standard contender. Has this changed?

I think is a mix, there are probably a lot of areas where it does provide value and it's getting to a point where training or tuning existing models is low hanging fruit for those areas. There is for sure another whole section of this that is "second life" like for marketing teams -- where they want to market something in the AI space to try to ride the wave. I fear a lot of the executions coming right now are "just do something with AI".

This is not my understanding, I have read at least 7 or 8 papers that seem to have for various models and techniques reduced the delta between masked and unmasked recognition to be very similar on false positive and positive rates.

https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3417/11/16/7310 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S240589632... ...

That said I have no insight as to how many of these techniques have been found to scale well or have started to make it into product. It has been publicly reported that NEC’s NeoFace (a system that many police and govt use) newer versions does indeed have occlusion (mask) recognition operating at very high levels.

anyways thats just my understanding as an interested bystander -- not in the field.

I don't know what merchant system they are using but I will say it is very common for them to have their own anti fraud detection and rejection on charges. Your specific case could be related to a huge list of possibilities (even many of them a rollup of many other interactions on other sites that happen to use the same merchant or foundational fraud data).

Thinking this is just because of a domain name is silly.

Also Fly.io -- You may want to clearly accept and manage trial issues (or at least a subset) via a support path. It seems silly to effectively bounce users with the impression that you have no support because they are not YET paying customers while in the trial phase.

You have been a good Bing.

There have been pretty huge leaps over partially obstructed facial recognition algorithms in the last few years -- I think state of the art is approaching no meaningful loss of match mask vs no mask.

The leds are placed on the chest -- seems like a miss to not place them also around the hoodie near the face. I would suspect even without strobing the over saturation would work should those leds be surrounding the face.

All of that said, wearing something like this out (unless it becomes super commonplace lol) just screams watch me closely (and easily follow me back to some known origin).

it looks like the only thing openai does is generate a schema from a specific hand written prompt from cursory overview.

imagine the reaction when he finds out what that house that sold for 60k thirty years ago costs now.

+ if the Toyota engine fails in a car you tow it to a shop -- if the 172 engine fails you emergency land in the best case (or crash in the worst). There is just a whole lot more onus to work on plane engines and that should and does come with a price tag...

This or that non-technical person finding a technical co-founder while not being realistic about the stake each provides to the company. Ideas are worthless (infinite numbers of them are forgotten every day), executing ideas is what has the potential for realizing value.

I have seen so many people who do realize they need a technical partner, but arrive at the table thinking the valuable asset is the idea.

and it sounds like in this case, anything that was out of compliance (in any regard) was acted on by wiping the device and deregistering it on the deadline day -- read this as 1700 laptops or desktops getting wiped in one day.

yeah even if they are wrapping with near noop guards all over the ast/codebase as its being compiled and the secret sauce is just to tickle the guard to log at those specific points dynamically you would think this would have huge overheads for the no log states as those guards get bypassed for hot code blocks. (kind of like running in a debugger env).

They note that this is patented -- I wonder how. Every way I can imagine this being implemented in the languages they support seems to be clearly prior well known art. Patent office granting more "RED -- we own compressing raw" type patents?

Looking at the patent seems like they are monkey patching either dynamically or into ast injected nodes at compile time. what the heck is the PO doing. also who in their right mind would open their prod services to an external party for code injection lol.

If they shoot and miss, assault or murder they get additional uplifted charges (like you list above because of the ACT not just intent). Robbing with a weapon is in itself prima facie evidence of willingness to use that weapon and why there is uplifted punishment for "armed robbery" vs "robbery".

If they simply rob without a weapon, there are generally robbery charges with lessor penalties.

There is a clear uplift of risk/jeopardy of death or harm when using a weapon while committing robbery -- the person committing the crime is only partially in control of the outcome: the victim, witnesses, law enforcement interruption or an infinite number of random events can all trigger the harm (which is attached to the original crime). But this is well known and a decision the assailant made before committing the act -- they inherently are willing to kill or harm the second they chose to use the weapon in the act even if their intent walking into it was not to kill specifically.

I guess we just disagree, but I am very happy the laws and punishments are written to align with my POV.

This is kind of the issue with an interested party/vendor running benchmarks like these. Be it by pure dumb luck or malfeasance you are much more likely to configure and be knowledgeable about your own product than the others and toss out responses and results that are wildly inaccurate/misleading.

There is always room for new ideas in filesystems. The question is are those new ideas good enough to pull eyeballs and bits? Even if the ideas are great, between the complexity of filesystems, risk associated with them and deployment of them -- the most likely "successful" new filesystems would be backed by a large player in the OS space.

revision control systems are littered with filesystem projects that have died on the tree.