expazl

In it's judgement, not in it's scheduling. Scheduling when cases are viewed based on the probability that they will be difficult doesn't break that promise. But if there is a correlation whereby simpler cases tend to be dismissed while more complicated cases tend to stick, that means you end up with a correlation (not causation) between time of day and case outcome, but that doesn't mean it's biased or affected by hunger.

At the root of the issue was that they where not solvent when bonds where valued at market-to-market, but you don't really care about that when you are intending to hold the bonds to maturity. They where solvent when bonds where valued at maturation rates. The latter valuation is what you traditionally calculate and use in banking, the prior only becomes relevant if there is a run on the bank and you have to liquidate immediately to cover, which is of cause what happened.

The great comedy of the situation is that if everyone had been calm and said "hmm, they need to raise some capital lets see what happens" SVB might have had a bad quarter or two, but they wouldn't have gone bankrupt. They only went down because the startup community reaction to hearing "we need to raise capital to cover day to day liquidity requirements" was to initiate an immediate flash run on the bank, which meant they where forced to sell all those bonds at a discounted market-to-market rate instead of holding them to maturity as was the expectation.

> The rational action is always to defect.

If that was true, then every bank every day would see runs on their holdings. Obviously that doesn't happen, because most traditional banks have larger institutional customers who understand that the market-to-market value on bonds might dip a bit, but that as long as the bank is able to negotiation loans or raise capital to provide needed liquidity then it's not a big issue. You don't see runs on traditional banks like this, because in the traditional banking sector people pick up the phone and talk to each other instead of taking to twitter and screaming doom and destruction because they read a blog post that they didn't understand but which said something about market-to-market insolvent and sounded scary.

It was a modified prisoners dilemma where 100 prisoners are faced with steal or share, and have every possible chance to communicate but just can change their choice after making it. And if just 20 had shared, then everyone wins, even those who chose steal. But the panic and the irresponsible VCs lack of communication with the bank and each other meant that in a heartbeat 85 prisoners had chosen steal, before even looking up at each other or listening to the rules being fully explained, and the remaining 15 where left perplexed that there wasn't even 5 amongst the panicked bunch left to help resolve the situation calmly to everyones benefit.

> a fund that was acting responsibly

You have to consider how these actions will affect the future relationships between banks and both the specific actors but also the startup scene in general. Startups already had a difficult time with traditional banking which is a large factor in why SVB was so successful, because it catered to the market specifically. What bank is now going to look at a startup not be thinking "Do we really want to take on a group of people who will collectively launch a bankrun at the slightest sign of trouble, even if we are geared to handle a bank run?", A run on the bank is never good news, even if the bank stays liquid, and it has a ton of knock-on effects and causes a huge number of headaches for the bank.

In this situation, where you think there might be a bank run and you have a coordinating role with a large number of customers. I think the responsible thing to do would have been to reach out to the bank and talk through all the options that will let everyone stay whole without a bankrun, not to fire up a group chat and scream "The bank is burning to the ground!". It seemed very likely that without the panic SVB could have secured liquidity and then the long term investments would not have posed a risk. I'm not saying their position was optimal or even good, but the panic just does not look to be the best option for the customers nor the most responsible action for those who had major pull in the market.

> If payment is done by other banks, doesn't that serve as mitigation?

Seems the exact opposite. Why would any bank ever conduct risk assessment if their potential failure will be paid by the industry as a whole. This effectively tells any other bank that might be fearing for a bank run to stock up on super risky assets and to let the dice roll to see if they end up winning big, or if their competitors end up paying for their losses.

I'd encourage you to consult the literature you link before making assertions like that.

If you review the article you linked you'll see that female suicide in Sweden is actually lower in 2018 than it was in 2009. So it' doesn't match the same rise since 2012 seen in America.

https://media.springernature.com/lw685/springer-static/image...

And sure you can fit an overall rise across all the years, but it's clear from inspecting the curve that this is not a strong correlation, and in fact if you remove the years prior to 2008 that should be irrelevant for the changes due to social media since 2012, then there is no upwards trend. So what is actually seen is likely better explained by relation to the general economic prosperity prior to 2008 and downturn after than anything related to social media.

I had consulted the literature, though I'll take note of bringing along the references. I admit that I am only looking at my own small corner of the world, Denmark. But still, It seems odd to me that our country would for some reason be immune to the evils of social media if that is indeed the root cause of these rises. For references: Stable suicide attempt rates in the period:

https://psykiatrifonden.dk/files/styles/common_04/public/med...

Mænd=Men, Kvinder=Woman, I Alt= Total

And falling suicide attempt rates over the same period:

https://psykiatrifonden.dk/files/styles/common_04/public/med...

Statistics are from the Danish Psychiatry foundation.

> The most plausible explanation for teenage unhappiness.

For any explanation to be plausible it has to take into consideration that America is not the world. We don't see the same sharp rises in depression amongs teens in europe, and guess what, europe has phones too, it has social media too. The explanation has to be rooted in something that's taking into account the differences between USA and the rest of the world. One thing that comes to mind is that children likley suffer trauma when they see students murder other students or shoot their teachers, or hear news about such events. But I don't quite think the size of the problem matches the size of depression statistics, even if rampant school shootings and gun violence are a uniquely american problem.

Come on now. That's like screaming "white lives matter too!" at a black lives matter protest.

No one is arguing that depression is great for older people or for men, just because they are taking a focused look on what might cause a sharp rise in the rate of depression of young females.

If the sharp rise since 2012 in female teenage depression in USA is caused by social media. Why isn't the same sharp rise seen in Europe, where female teenagers also use social media?

It reads a bit like the author has a misconception of what commmits are. A commit is not a diff, it's a snapshot. All of the talk about branches containing changes etc, make sense in the context of it being a reference to the latest snapshot. And yes it might not make sense if you think of a branch as a reference to the latest difference, but this is a misconception.

Free speech does not mean free from consequences. Its perfectly understandable to want to protect the freedom that allows nazi sympathisers to speak about their hatred for the Jewish people, while still wanting for no-one to chose to do so, and also there to be social consequences for the people who do so.

The anti-freedom of speech path would be to ban any pro nazi speech entirely.

The value of "art" goes down with the number of people able to create it. If it takes someone a week of training and a days work to create a Mona Lisa replica with glowing teeth, then that's worthless art, even if it does look better than the original. Makes for a great publicity stunt for the museum to put something like that up, and there's only one person who can be the first to do it. So in other words, there cannot be a large number of people able to do that. Therefore this time it's art that has some worth, the next time someone does it its worthless.

This is just complete speculation, but to me, the timing and difference in ratio between male and female seems to correlate extremely well with a hypothesis that much of this is driven by the "sexting age" brought about with the advent of snapchat and similar apps. These apps have the dangerous duality that they are viewed very naively by less tech literate who see as something that facilitates sending nude pictures by only letting your recipient see them and deleting them after a fixed period. Of cause to anyone slightly more tech literate apps like that are a bombshell waiting to happen anytime anything remotely compromising is sent. This fits well with a lot of the cases you hear about where what would have just been hallway gossip of "did you hear that XX and XY broke up and are fighting?" which now is a viral package of pictures typically of XX being sent around to everyone on campus.

This hypothesis also helps to explain why European countries where snapchat and similar apps never gained huge popularity before there where already campaigns warning young people never to trust that something sent through them would not end up on the internet forever.

But that's all just random speculation on my part, and I have no real evidence to make the connection. All I can say is that the timing and ratio makes me thing that it's worth looking into just how many major depressed teenagers have had some sort of personal material leak outside of the intended recipients.

"We're loosing money on every sale, how will we ever survive?"

"Don't worry, we'll make up for it in volume"

> yet you'll externalize the consequences to employees.

If a F1 driver admits his driving led to them loosing the race even though engineering did everything right, it's still the entire team that doesn't get the price. And if the entire team doesn't get enough funds in from their endeavor they might have to carry out layoffs. And you can be sure they'll lay off one of the 40 engineers before they lay off the driver.

That does not mean the driver can't mean it when he says he's sorry and taking responsibility. Trust me, he would rather be on the podium than loosing.

The mob mentality of "fire the driver first" will only leave you with 40 engineers starring at a car in a lot. You might say they need to change the driver, and that's certainly what's going to happen if management sees an opportunity for a better driver, but they can't just switch drivers between every race, imagine the spectators outrage at this team that's completely unpredictable and only ever keeps a driver for multiple races when he's first on the podium. And what driver would ever want to sign such a contract? Leave which ever team they are on for the chance at a higher pay, conditioned on getting 1 every time, otherwise the contract is void.

Or if you live in Europe and go to the same place often you can not tip, and no-one will care. No waiter will be angry at you, no business will think you a bad customer. Because you're paying what the service costs, which is why they put that price on the product that you decided to purchase up front knowing it's price and knowing that this is what they expected and would be happy to receive in return for that product.

I don't expect you to necessarily agree with this comment, but I do expect a minimum tip otherwise I'll hate you with every cell in my body since my being able to afford to support my family depends on it. /s

Damn they are getting absolutely slaughtered on Steam reviews, here's from kazekaizen with 327 hours played at reiew time:

  They deemed a fully operational cash shop, which works like a charm and updates without any issues, a necessity. Here is a list of things they thought weren't needed:
  It doesn't need mission select
  It doesn't need a campaign
  It doesn't need a story when they hired a 40k writer
  It doesn't need weapons they've shown in gameplay trailers
  It doesn't need the 70+(PLUS) weapons promised
  It doesn't need a 5th class like vermintide on launch
  It doesn't need 2nd and 3rd careers like vermintide on launch
  It doesn't need crafting like vermintide on launch
  It doesn't need the promo outfits
  It doesn't need enemies shown in trailers
  It doesn't need to run at >30 fps even on 30 series cards
  It doesn't need their PR to post outside of their discord
  It doesn't need to be finished on "launch"
  It doesn't need basic mob patrols
  It doesn't need better spawning
  It doesn't need a scoreboard
  It doesn't need penances not to require griefing entire team
  It doesn't need shared inventory with all characters
  It doesn't need shared set of weeklies for all characters
  It doesn't need unified currency
  It doesn't need crossplay with Game Pass users
  It doesn't need Launch stabilisation
  It doesn't need an option to disable RTX
  It doesn't need to prioritise core features over a virtual store
  It doesn't need options to unlock store cosmetics with in-game earned currency
  It doesn't need to fix crashes of the game before crashes of  the store
  It doesn't need a positive review score
  The lead designer of FS thinks that the armoury shop, map rotation and crafting system are all fine. Even though people except improvements regarding these issues. Communication is nonexistent.

It sounds like they did a Diablo 3. Vermintide was well received, Vermintide 2 as well. "Lets make a cash-shop wrapped up in Vermintide 3, er Dark tide, and we'll be rolling in it!" But then they spent all their effort building the shop and the needed annoying grinding experience that has to exist around it to push people to spend money and somehow forgot about making a good game to wrap around it.

Why would a worker who owns a house and every year is owed more and more in unpaid back salary from a company they are working at for free, ever need to sell their house to cover the debt that the company has to themselves?

Yes, an Apple is just a fruit. But a fruit didn't create the iPhone. So perhaps when people talk about Apples upcoming phone, they probably mean the company not the fruit. And when people talk about Agile in relation to software development they likely mean to refer to Agile software development not just the word agile.

Your comment strikes me as a bit odd, let me explain why.

Yes you're correct in saying that op was talking about scrum not agile, but "scrum uses agile" is a very confusing phrase. Scrum predates agile by 8 years, so how could it use something that wasn't invented when i was created. Also agile isn't something "to use" since it's not a framework. Scrum is something that you use, since it is an actual framework, and often people who implement agile use Scrum, because scrum was very much in the minds of the creators of the agile manifesto. And this should not surprise anyone as the creators of scrum where also part of the group that created the agile manifesto.

> THE FAROES ARE ONE OF THE RICHEST COUNTRIES in the world by per capita GDP—even slightly richer than Denmark itself.

The Faroe Islands are a strange place. There aren't many people, yet you'll see huge infrastructure projects to literally drill tunnels through mountains to connect at 2-3 families with the main roads. A gigantic amount of public money gets pumped into every part of their industry and infrastructure, funded by Denmark.

On a completely unrelated note, the the wife of the previous prime minister is from the Faroe Islands, and he has been known for being bad at separating private and public interests, and for cases of pumping money into specific monopolistic fishermens pockets while taking huge donations from the same to his own funds. The two of them also own a company that plans tours from Denmark to the Faroe Islands.

He's no longer prime minister but managed to create a central party that was key in establishing the current government. I'm sure we'll see a continuation of pumping money into the Faroe Islands.

All that said, it's a lovely place to visit, especially for people who enjoy hiking and don't mind damp weather, and there's some cool places to see puffins.

That's not squatters logic any more than you're a squatter in your own home if you refuse to sell even if a generous offer comes along because you value your home a lot more than even an above market offer, but you'd still likely sell at 100 times valuation. Again, that doesn't make you a squatter, just someone holding on to something and saying "If you really want this, you're going to have to offer me something grand, and I know you can afford it, otherwise I'll hold on to it".

What? A company pays it's workers a salary and that's a loss for the business no matter if the people it's paid to are using it for food and rent.

If they didn't have any revenue coming in at all, then they should have a quite high deficit in the company that they can subtract against the income now to reduce taxes.

Relevant to that is the fact that the author of urrlib3 stopped collaborating with the author of "requests" because the latter was misusing the popularity of the library in fundraising for what seemed entirely personal goals, while advertising "new features in requests" that where in fact just urrlib3 features he planned to also expose in "requests". That and a bunch of other stuff, the blog is here:

https://vorpus.org/blog/why-im-not-collaborating-with-kennet...

Is this a deathblow to the amyloid hypothesis?

Where I live people in my generation have been primarily cashless at least the last quarter of a century, and yet we still significantly outrank the US in the freedom indexes, which isn't exactly a high bar these days, but still serves to underline that the typical American centrist argument that using primarily paper cash somehow improves freedom is wrong.

> and is not just a casino for kids.

It shouldn't matter what it also is. There's plenty of illegal drugs that you could give to kids that might give them a high but would also help them stay focused in school, that doesn't mean we should be ok with drugdealers pedling drugs to children.

If someone can make a popular video game with the elements of Roblox without the gambling then all the power to them, but arguing that getting a whole generation started with their gambling additions at age 5 is ok because they also get a brief introduction to LUA is just madness.

Who can this be propaganda? It is reporting, not advocating. No one is trying to convince kids to take allowances in robux, parents are telling the story of how their children are asking for robux instead of dollars in allowance.