After reading Chip War I read Conquering the Electron by Eric Brach and Derek Cheung. Very good book that goes into a bit more detail than Chip War. Chip War focuses more on the geopolitics than the science.
Very good point - I guess they are trying to redefine the terminology in this category and create unique marketing keywords. I suspect that is too late, VR Goggles just seems to ingrained but perhaps I'm wrong.
You fail to understand the actual reason for their insolvency. Their risk team chose to buy 10 year treasury bonds instead of 1 year treasury bonds. This is because 10 year bonds offered a higher interest rate (more profit for SVB) but at a much much higher risk. The losses were then unrecognised, hoping the market would turn. Only when it was too late did SVB admit defeat. With their equity gone, they attempted a band aid with an equity raise but the market quite rightly recognised the bank’s shares were worthless.
Anyone working in risk management will tell you SVB’s risk team and executive team should be in jail.
Don’t blame SVB’s failure on a bank run. SVB caused their own failure with their own risk management policies and it’s insolvency was probably inevitable for months.
They could be jailed for insider trading for selling all their stocks within the past few months. And the funds from those sales should absolutely, at least, be clawed back and then some for their responsibility for their decision making.
I'd, for a change, like to see those responsible for massive business failures held to account personally and financially. The limitations on corporate liability are meant for investors, not executives or board members. And TBH, those accounts with over 100MM in deposit should probably lose the 10% or so under normal rules for this kind of thing, not be bailed out by the Fed, who will in turn likely need to be bailed out by taxpayers, or worse if this happens another couple times in the next couple years.
It nearly killed billions of dollars in real value and required untold thousands of taxpayer-funded employees working through the weekend to unfuck the situation.
If I drive recklessly, I am still guilty of reckless driving even though I didn't hit anyone or anything.
that might (or might not) be arguable from a moral viewpoint, but it definitely isn’t arguable from the actual statistics. about half of the US state prison population is there for non-violent crimes.
or like being in possession of a gram of meth for personal use: something a person might legitimately believe isn’t “wrong”. the meth user didn’t get into jail for violating his own moral code: he’s there for an error in judgement, this error being that he didn’t understand how strongly the people around him would react to actions he thought were not that big of a deal.
sibling comment does good by calling attention to driving: enough people text while drive that it can be considered normal behavior, that people who do this don’t actively think they’re doing wrong. but that doesn’t save them from culpability when they roll the dice poorly and hit a pedestrian.
what’s the difference between “manslaughter” and “murder”: it’s intent. our justice system does consider intent, but it doesn’t require it.
Directly, nobody was injured. Proximately, we really have no idea. I am in favor of strict liability for a broader variety of negligent behavior. Losing one's career over bad judgment is of course a kind of deterrent, but realistically lots of people fuck up and then go on to have moderately profitable second careers by writing a book and giving talks with titles like 'Learning Hard Lessons'. If they're entrepreneurial they can become stars of the MBA circuit.
Strict liability for negligence would just mean sending business overseas where that rule isn't in play, and chilling it domestically.
No one is interested in the deal "if you get it right, you make some money; if you get it wrong, we obliterate you".
The move from caveat emptor to caveat venditor has coincided with everyone legally ringfencing things with corps & LLCs. People find ways back to a fair deal.
Your understanding of the HTM portfolio (and reasons for it) are clearly not complete and no, not anyone in risk management will say their risk team should be in jail (excepting the case of documents proving the failure to hedge was done specifically to increase executive compenstation/bonuses). Calling into question the lack of hedging or use of MBS is fair game and not something most other institutions would have done.
For the record, "1 year treasury bonds" are 52 week Treasury Bills. They would not be buying off the run old debt.
As a libertarian, I'm perfectly fine with letting a business fail, and holding the management and board to personally account/liability for their actions.
The issue with that is that there’s often no adequate compensation for damages done. Individuals can get extraordinary rewards for high risk behaviour and positive tail outcomes but there is a limit how much you can take from them in case of a catastrophic (societal) outcome. Regulation is really the only way manage this asymmetry.
"Regulation" is what created those limits... Of course, the true limit being, the loss of their wordly posessions and assets, and possible jail time for anti-trust action. Lack of regulation defaults to common law, which is as much as possible restoring those harmed by those responsible.
The actual "letting it fail" would be to pay up looses only for those insured. Those who did not insured would not be paid looses in "let it fail world".
Exactly... they liquidate the bank's assets, payout the FDIC insured, and most of the depositors only lose about 10%... the shareholders would lose more... and the executives and board potentially lose everything to pay shareholders. That's how this is supposed to work under existing rules.
Why didn't the fed decide that course of action in this case?
Seems the difference is small. Shareholders still lost everything, depositors lost nothing instead of 10% but that's a minor difference.
Guess one difference is how long it'll take before depositors can access their money. Now they'll get it immediately. If they were waiting for liquidation of the banks assets, that would probably take longer.
The difference is that the thought of losing 10% is enough to make everyone else consider withdrawing the money they have with their banks. And that initiates a bank run that would spill over all the banking sector. The bailout is not to protect SVB; that's already gone. Fed is now trying to avoid having people stress testing other banks, because they probably won't handle it.
Counting to three only works if you're willing and able to do whatever the thing is you said you would do to the child when they are misbehaving.
I think it's less that people see a slap on the wrist, and more that people see the systemic, wholesale capture and gutting of regulatory bodies and are not surprised that nothing substantive happens in this kind of case.
And why are they not paying attention 99% of the other time? When people lose faith in institutions it's not because they're dumb. They understand things.
And then to be gaslit into thinking "don't trust your eyes", you can see why some people are pretty angry nowadays.
Seems to me like the airline might fight that harder.
I don't know what the reality is, but I can imagine a justification that looks something like, "We do this slap on the wrist. You fix this or next time we have a paper trail showing you know this is illegal conduct"
Spam callers come to mind. Some of it may be due to some technical nature that made it difficult/impossible to enforce but we've had donotcall.gov and all sorts of legislation for fines and penalitoes and I still get slews of spam solicitations to this day.
I think the general consensus for your average citizen and consumer these days is that they are voiceless and powerless in most these situations while lots of posturing and theatrics go on between government and businesses, all while fleecing your average citizen and consumer.
Most see a lot more erosion than we see realized improvements in daily life from rights, regulatory action, or market trends/shifts.
I wonder if the spam calling companies keep appearing and disappearing so quickly that it's hard for the government to find them. That's not the case for airlines.
It isn't that it is hard to find them but politicians are afraid of setting limits on cold calling because politicians themselves frequently use questionable call lists to robocall people. Also, they are too weak to sanction countries where spam calls are mostly originating. I believe the should start treating robocallers like terrorists, maybe drone a couple call centers and watch as they stop almost overnight.
>politicians are afraid of setting limits on cold calling because politicians themselves frequently use questionable call lists to robocall people.
I think they sometimes avoid this problem by only putting restrictions on commercial entities, not on political or charitable entities:
>In Michigan, commercial vendors are not permitted to robocall individuals without prior consent, but political campaigns and charitable organizations are exempt from any such restrictions.[1]
There does seem to be some bipartisan support for fighting spam calls.[2]
There is no such thing as 'supply-side price increases'. There is the market price. And the price comes down if demand is supressed.
The issue right now is that demand is actually being ENCOURAGED by low interest rates and continued quantitative easing. Don't be fooled, 2% is still a low interest rate historically speaking.
The inflation we're experiencing is actually demand-led. Contrary to what you may believe demand has been elevated since Covid-19 and supply quickly bounced back.
Oil and gas price increases are due to high industrial and demand. Their supply is at record levels.
What is truly insane is inflation being greater than 10% and interest rates being only c. 2%. There is a reason why the BoE theoretically targets 2% above all other metrics. Unfortunately they have significantly deviated from this.
The only way for commodity prices to decline, or at least remain level, is a concerted increase across the board by the major banks to reduce demand.
Some good points here. I think the lying by omission is a key issue. It makes it very difficult to be informed. I wouldn’t hold The Guardian up to the same standard as The New York Times though. The NY Times is a paper of record while the Guardian has a deliberate left slant. The opinion articles in the guardian are often ridiculous.
It bugs me whenever i see something like this. Left/Right isnt really a useful continuum to measure bias over.
Realistically most outlets feigns independence but demonstrate fealty to particular power centers.
It's obvious how little point there is when you try to "measure" RT on the left wing/right wing scale (theyre pro russia above all) but what applies to them applies equally to all other outlets.
It's particularly galling when the power center is authoritarian/corporatist but wears a progressive mask for sake of fooling the naive.
I get the problem. Wouldn't say it applies equally to other outlets. RT is very specifically a single-state propaganda tube, while a lot of Western press could perhaps be characterized as vaguely Atlanticist and pretty pro-globalization. But I'm not sure whether this was what you meant exactly by power centers.
Would they need more categories, then? Like geo-political orientation and state influence (although the latter would often be close to the press freedom rating)?
I meant more like the democratic party (new york times), republican party (fox), the national security establishment (washington post).
This is still too vague even, I think and there are probably complex sub-centres of power (e.g. factions within the democrats) and alliances (e.g. the neocon/democratic party nexus) reflected as well.
All of this gets airbrushed over by the traditional left/right continuum.
It's critically important too, coz it definitely drives both what is reported and how it's selectively presented and is a better predictor than an arbitary left/right designation.
It looks like it, from the explanation of the ratings on the site. It would be impossible to consider the capitalist bastion of the New York Times to be left-leaning anywhere outside the Overton window of the United States.
Probably the same scale, although you can understand that in several ways. In any case, they clearly use the American typology, conflating the liberal-conservative axis with left-right. So it's next to impossible to tease out how left or right a publication is on more traditional markers, such as economic policy, in particular, but also labour issues, ideological orientation (e.g. Marxist/Social Democrat/Third Way/Social Liberal, or an even more mixed crowd on the right) etc.
NY Times delayed a report about the Iraq war until after the 2004 re-election of G. W. Bush because his administration asked them to do so.
Snowden has also mentioned that he went to Glenn Greenwald, who was working at The Guardian, because he trusted their integrity and he wasn't sure NY Times would work with him or sell him out to the government.
As a former fan of Greenwald, I do think he's gone a bit mad and is now just screaming "I know what I'm talking about, and I know I'm right! Why won't you believe me!!!" instead of presenting the plain facts.
Yeah Glen can be pretty over the top / grating stylistically recently, but he still seems to be rigorously honest, which is definitely more than you can say for the NYT or Guardian.
At this point there are facts that are true but deemed as biased, in the current political climate stating that countries with legal abortion have less deaths when undergoing that procedure than where is ilegal its seen as taking a strongly left stance; meanwhile in other countries stating the exact same it's completely apolitical because even if a lot of people there have strong opinions about it these are not concentrated in one of the two major political parties.
I'd say the NYT has an "educated big coastal city american slant", not sure it's a question of left or right. I seem to remember they were pretty gung-ho about invading Iraq, hardly a left-wing position
It’s a nobody position in 2022, but the Iraq Resolution passed through congress and the senate with a substantial level of bi-partisan support. So really, it was a popular left-wing position at the time.
To go from "most of the people in congress support X" to "therefore X was popular to the left wing" makes quite the leap, first of all that congress evenly represents its constituency. Left wing of US is tiny and has little representation in congress and mainstream media (including NYT). This is true today as well as back then.
I think you're also overstating the bi partisan support the Iraq resolution had. Of the Democrats, only 39% representatives and 29 out of 50 senators voted for it. Among the bloc who voted against the Iraq Resolution were politicians like Bernie Sanders, Lynn Woolsey, Barbara Lee, Peter DeFazio, et al., who at the time, represented even your definition of "left wing".
It had well over a super majority in both houses, that is substantial bipartisan support.
If the definition of “left” isn’t “mainstream left wing politics”, and is instead “a small collection of politicians chosen by dfxm12”, then the word may as well not have a meaning.
It had well over a super majority in both houses, that is substantial bipartisan support.
I'll add that super majority doesn't mean much in terms of "bi partisan support", when a single party (the republicans) nearly had a super majority of the house alone. Even in the senate, the Republicans pretty much all voted the same way while the Democrats split. It's almost as if there was some sub group of politicians for whom this issue was not popular and split from the mainstream, off to one side (plus the regular Americans who did not support the war).
If the definition of “left” isn’t “mainstream left wing politics”
"Left" or "left wing" is by definition not "mainstream".
and is instead “a small collection of politicians chosen by dfxm12”, then the word may as well not have a meaning.
> I'll add that super majority doesn't mean much in terms of "bi partisan support", when a single party (the republicans) nearly had a super majority of the house alone.
In 2002 the republicans has a 14 seat majority in the house, and no majority in the senate with only 49 seats. The history re-writing going on here is pretty extreme.
> It had well over a super majority in both houses, that is substantial bipartisan support.
maybe, but that doesn't tell you as much as this (particularly since it seeks to obscure the actual numbers):
> Of the Democrats, only 39% representatives and 29 out of 50 senators voted for it. Among the bloc who voted against the Iraq Resolution were politicians like Bernie Sanders, Lynn Woolsey, Barbara Lee, Peter DeFazio, et al., who at the time, represented even your definition of "left wing".
as for your assertion that your definition of "left wing" is better: such a bare assertion will not be taken at face value
"bi-partisan" support in congress/parliament doesn't map neatly onto left/right support. In the UK, the Labour party (ostensibly the left wing party) pushed for the Iraq war and the vote passed with bi-partisan support, but it was still about as far from a "popular left-wing position" as you could get.
I’d say that’s just the difference between whatever ideals you hold the left to represent, and the ideas they champion in reality. To say the Iraq invasion didn’t have a substantial level of left wing support is simply to rewrite history.
I think you Americans should stick to calling this group as liberals or move to progressives where appropriate (identity politics, woke "ideology" etc.), and leave "left" to those who can still perceive it as a somewhat coherent concept in their politics (although perhaps every day less so). What I mean is just that if you toned down their woke/progressive evangelism and posing, the Democrats would be a firmly center-right party in large parts of western and central continental Europe, for example.
This is just a no-true-scotsman though. The term “left”, whilst representing an extreme generalization, means just as much (or as little) in the US as it does continental Europe, or any other western democracy.
yes, of the groups left, center, and right, it means those left of center, regardless of party
currently the Democratic party best represents "center" for a number of reasons, not the least of which is because their platform better represents most Americans (but not the ones on the right or left) than that of another major parry platform
I’m actually struggling to understand the article because the Ulster Flag is used to represent Northern Ireland in pretty much every kind of context. Whether or not Northern Ireland is technically a country or province is irrelevant and just semantics.
If you look at golf Rory McIlroy’s name appears beside the Ulster Flag. In the commonwealth games it’s the same.
It would be fascinating to see the design review document and resulting launch metrics for this. Somewhere deep in Google there is a written justification for the previous dark pattern.
Or they CC'd lawyers in all the discussions, ostensibly to receive legal review but actually so they could later try to hide those discussions from discovery under the pretext of it being privileged attorney-client communication.
Good ventilation is required through a counter-flow heat-exchange. This typically gives you the problem of too low humidity, as you remove humid air and get condensation in the heat exchange.
There is risk of condensation in the walls. The internal warm layer is airtight, but the walls need to be ably to breath to the outside. Your wood can rot if you make mistakes here, especially on small leaks in the airtight layer. So air-tightness actually is needed to prevent too much condensation in the construction.
This all supposes that warm is inside and cold outside, as is typical where I live. In reverse conditions, with hot humid weather and cooling inside, condensation is likely in the walls, as the airtight layer is on the cold side of the wall now.
So condensation in the construction is unavoidable. I used an online calculator to decide my material use [1] to estimate how often it does happen, and how long it typically takes to dry. Inside my home, I need a humidifier, this winter it was often below 30%.
If you don't analyze it properly there's always the risk of condensation in the walls, but that risk is far higher from uninsulated walls. With uninsulated cavity walls you have room temperature + room humidity on the interior, and a sharp gradient to outside temperature within the wall, where all the moisture condenses in the winter. Worst possible situation.
There's tons of published guidelines about moisture in insulated walls. The easiest thing to build without making some fatal mistake is to put the insulation on the exterior, with a ventilated screen between it and the wall cladding. The best solution also depends on your local climate. See e.g. https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy13osti/56709.pdf
