Nothing to do with USSR legacy, especially considering that EU funds became available for new roadworks in the early millennium. Lithuania was occupied by the USSR, too, and is about the same size, but it has emphasized motorways more. If you drive north through the Baltics, the change from Lithuanian roads to Latvian ones is drastic.
That’s still on the GP and the general public health policy of Australia. If I go to my GP with a cold here in the Netherlands, there is a snowball’s chance in hell that I get prescribed antibiotics.
I for one have built enough Linux kernels from scratch, and patched enough Linux drivers into working — thanks, so no one can call me an average Joe when it comes to tech. However, I mostly left all of that behind outside of work years ago, I’m desperate for time, not money, and I have way better things to do with my time than dick around with a custom android build, thanks. You do you, but Apple provides me with a ‘good enough’ service that saves me a lot of time.
> 4. The old treasuries decline 30-40% in present value. Oops, they're not so safe after all if you need your money back before maturity, which is often decades away.
This is because they fucked up their duration risk handling, no one held a gun to SVBs head and forced them to invest so heavily in long duration bonds. If they bought more short duration bonds none of this would be a problem. Other banks didn’t make this mistake. So why did they do it? Greed, or who knows, maybe it was plain old ignorance/hubris. Still, it was 100% avoidable. SVB fucked up bad and pointing blame at the fed is just not making them accountable.
Like fuck, who are these dumb chimps running this place. When I help my parents plan their retirement I looked at 100 years of history of what normal fluctuations are in the bond or stock market. Looking up data like that takes an hour and should make anyone with basic math skills realize rate and the bond fluctuations that follow at 100% bound to happen given enough time. It was just absolute amateur hour at SVB.
Maybe, but the latest Fed action violates a 40-year downtrend in interest rates, so it was exceptionally improbable from a historical perspective. From 2020 trough to 2022 peak, government interest rates increased almost 1,000%, which means the magnitude also is hard to anticipate or plan for, and the effects extreme from failing to do so. You can do a regression of interest rates from whenever to now, draw a line that's never violated until 2022 (even the 2020 lows were in-trend) and the 2022 highs were almost 50% higher than the trend.
I don't make excuses for dumb decisions, but... someone said recently when the Fed taps the brakes someone always goes through the windshield. This was a far more extreme scenario than tapping the brakes on a car. More like the moon stopped. We all knew it could theoretically, and what do you know, it just stopped.
> Maybe, but the latest Fed action violates a 40-year downtrend in interest rates, so it was exceptionally improbable from a historical perspective.
imo this is very flawed thinking, a once in a 40 year event is almost 100% likely to happen in an average persons life — maybe twice. I think when it comes to either your life savings or gigantic amounts of money like banks manage it’s irresponsible to not consider economic cycles that even only happen once per 100 years because of how likely it is to happen once is your life and be absolutely devastating.
I stand by my statement, this is 100% on SVBs amateur hour monkey level thinking.
I'm not disagreeing that SVB was wrong, but it's easy for us arm-chair folks to second-guess the wisdom of creating a business model that was doomed in a once-in-40-year-catastrophe. But, "Silicon Valley" was in the name and 40 years was a long time ago, so why not.
Risk management is not that difficult. Interest Rate exposure is a first order risk that even juniors should be able hedge out properly - it's not some exotic event where correlations went out of whack or something. These guys were either clueless / had no visibility into their balance sheet or outright criminal.
I'm a child of a bookkeeper with no econ training under my belt and I know about interest rate exposure and risk hedging. And there have been discussions since 2008 about how long QE and low interest rates could last, it's not like that was a new question.
>World order is still fluctuating all as a result of these betrayals.
It seems a pretty basic assumption that someone at SVB did a WHAT IF analysis to game out different scenarios if interest rates started rising. This is not rocket science.
>You can do a regression of interest rates from whenever to now, draw a line that's never violated until 2022 (even the 2020 lows were in-trend) and the 2022 highs were almost 50% higher than the trend
Well, if your bank is relying on analysis like this, it deserved to fail.
Here's how easy this situation was:
"Historically, would 5% interest rates be seen as crazy? What happens to our balance sheet if we see those rates?"
Well 0.1 -> 1.0 is a 900% increase, want to 1.0 -> 4.0 is "just" 300% so I'm not sure if this is a very good way to measures increases in interest rates...
> regression of interest rates from whenever to now, draw a line that's never violated until
I don't think anyone in such position would do a simple regression to guess interests.
In 2020 and 2021, we already had tons of talk of upcoming inflation due to the stimulus pacjages. I myself took some precautions, and I am really not at all savvy.
The management team of a major bank would certainly be aware of the risk of inflation given the massive uptick in money supply and that the fed would be forced to raise interests as soon as the inflation manifests.
I think incompetence is an easier explanation. Years of ZIRP bubbled incompetent or lazy people to the top.
It really didn't take a finance expert to appreciate that when interest rates ranged from less than 1% short term to barely 2% at 10 years, interest rates could only go up, 40 year trend or not. And being invested long, for very little gain, was extremely dangerous should rates go up. It has been clear since the 2008 crash that longer bonds had far more downside than upside when rates were so close to zero, so why take the risk?
Forcing people to open cash businesses to launder their money creates economic activity, it’s a win-win situation for everyone except the criminal that gets taxed while converting their dirty money to clean money.
Exactly this. As late as the 2001 I could cross into the US from Canada with as little as my birth certificate, which I often did. That was just a cotton blended paper with tattered edges with some writing, and the crest of my province printed on it. There wasn’t even a photo on it! It was closer to writing, ‘I’m daniel plz let me in’ on a napkin, than it is to my passport of today with its photo, barcode, and RFID chip that they can cross reference their data base with.
> As late as the 2001 I could cross into the US from Canada with as little as my birth certificate,
Growing up in Detroit in the 80s (which some people don't realize is right on the border with Canada -- and that you travel south across a bridge to get to Canada! look it up) -- we generally didn't even bring our birth certificate. which may be a testament to our social class -- they could ask for a birth certificate if they thought you seemed "suspicious" (which i'm sure is racially coded), but for 90%+ of crossings, and 100% of our crossings, it was a two question interview without showing any paperwork at all. "What is your citizenship? What is your purpose of travel? OK, go through." No showing of ID at all -- not even a driver's license!
[And again, they could ask for ID -- a driver's license or birth certificate -- if they wanted. I am positive at least 9 out of 10 crossings they did not. I am indeed sure that the race and class appearance (and accent) of the crosser was significant].
We used to patriotically brag (in the time of the cold war and berlin wall) that this was how borders between two stable "free" countries, the US and Canada, could be, "the longest open border in the world".
It makes me really sad to think about how much we have gotten used to living in a security state, that does not need to be that way.
(I'm realizing in my memory that not only did you show no paperwork, for the majority of crossings for people they did not deem "suspicious", you didn't even provide your name at all. I guess they could have been recording your license plate, not sure if they were, but there was no record left of the individual people crossing).
Actually before 9-11 you could enter Canada with only a Michigan drivers license. I did it all the time, had friends in Windsor and I'd drive down just to have dinner with them.
Now you need either a passport or a special Michigan drivers license. Last time I renewed in person after COVID I tried to get one. The lady behind the counter said you don't want one of those. I asked her why and she told me that I'd hold up the line behind me. Since I was renewing months after my license expired due to the office being closed at the beginning of COVID I didn't argue with her.
You can still cross EU borders with just a driving licence, or government issued ID where they have them.
(In practice the vast majority using planes and boats at least probably do take a passport, I always did from the UK, but in theory you don't need one, so if you weren't planning to go elsewhere you wouldn't even need to get a passport.)
> You can still cross EU borders with just a driving licence, or government issued ID where they have them.
For anybody unfamiliar with Europe, I just want to add that there aren't any checkpoints or border crossings, you just drive through or walk over. Half the time you won't even notice you're doing it. You're just supposed to have your ID on your person when you do.
Ireland (and previously the UK) is the only major exception to this, as it's part of the common travel area alongside the UK. In practice, this doesn't make a huge difference when you're an Irish or EU citizen (it does if you're a tourist who needs a different visa to visit), as it's an island, and airlines require a form of ID to board anyway. When travelling from Ireland to Schengen, I usually have a passport in my carry on luggage as a backup, and take my passport-card (similar to a national ID card) in my wallet.
>For anybody unfamiliar with Europe, I just want to add that there aren't any checkpoints or border crossings, you just drive through or walk over. Half the time you won't even notice you're doing it. You're just supposed to have your ID on your person when you do.
The above is only true in the Schengen zone. As soon as you cross the border to a non-Schengen country or you arrive from a non-Schengen country you will go through normal border control (with some exceptions). This includes multiple EU countries beside Ireland like Romania, Bulgaria or Cyprus. And many non-EU countries like Bosnia, Serbia, Monaco, Kosovo, Andorra, Ukraine, Turkey, Russia, etc.
But it also includes certain non-EU countries, like Switzerland. You won't notice having crossed the border before your phone notifies you that it just disabled data thanks to roaming charges getting capped at 50 without confirmation.
(I'm exaggerating, but only slightly.. the irony is that I used to have data roaming included in Switzerland, but the network forced me to a new plan that doesn't have that because the old one was almost but not quite complying with EU roaming rules)
> As soon as you cross the border to a non-Schengen country or you arrive from a non-Schengen country you will go through normal border control (with some exceptions)
Nothing in EU is as simple, therefore it's not only a Schengen/non-Schengen thing. For example a border between North and "regular" Ireland isn't marked in any way, you just cross a brook or a field.
I though the point of the Irish passport card was that it is a passport (not a national ID card), but that the only place where it is needed / accepted is in other EU MS (due to format, and lack of ability to be stamped)? Note - the EU includes a passport union, which has been in place since the EEC days.
i.e. that there should be no need to also carry your passport, unless intending to travel on outwith the EU?
You're right there isn't any need to have the passport booklet when travelling within the EU. I have the passport card on me almost 100% of the time when I'm not at home, as it's kept in my wallet. So I use that when flying within the EU as well.
However, when I'm traveling to somewhere that has a hotel safe, or somewhere secure enough to leave valuables, I'll bring the full passport booklet in my carry-on along with me, and leave it there when I go out. That way, in the unlikely event I should lose my wallet / passport card, I still have the full booklet to travel home on, rather than having to arrange emergency travel documents for the flight back.
I haven't needed it yet, but I don't see the harm in also taking it. It's not as if it takes up an obscene amount of space in my carry-on luggage, nor am I risking losing it by carrying it on my person at all times. It's purely there for peace of mind, and a backup in the very unlikely event I need it.
Lost in translation I think. You could cross the border to Canada with just your state issued ID/drivers license as well back then.
What OP is saying is that it was even more lax than that. OP brought a piece of paper that is trivially forged, no photo on it, that basically just said in writing who they were with no additional ID needed.
Yeah, perhaps. My surprise I suppose is because to me a birth certificate is something somewhat safely tucked away somewhere, extremely rarely required; frankly I don't know how much of a problem it would be to lose and try to replace (maybe not replacing it but fraud would be your greater concern?) but certainly not something generally carried around with you here. (At least, I'd be surprised to learn that's just me?)
Where do birth certificates contain photos? That… doesn’t sound very practical. (Imagining an elderly person handing in their photo as a toddler to border control.)
I get what you’re getting at, but in Canada birth certificates from the 80s had a wallet sized version that had no more information than a drivers license, but it didn’t even have a photo on it. It was just a little pice of paper. I remember that’s very different from modern birth certificates.
I also crossed into the U.S. with my health card that only had my name on it and a number that is meaningless to the US boarder agency, also no photo.
No, a drivers license is not enough, you’re supposed to bring a passport or a national id card. For UK nationals that meant a passport since the UK never had a national id card.
Within Schengen you can get away with just a drivers license since there are no checks, but that doesn’t make it allowed.
In the boarding line of a flight between EU destinations (well, Schengen destinations), I usually see about one couple clinging to their passports. They stand out as if they were dressed up in victorian age safari gear.
Sure, but no matter how far back in history you go this hasn’t applied to everyone. My dad had to jump through hoops to attend a conference in the states in the 90s. Including sitting in a line on the sidewalk in front of the US embassy for hours, as a well respected doctor in his 40s, curious what your thoughts are about that. Then I come to Canada in 2008 and hear people talk about all their trips to Europe and South America and they didn’t know what a visa meant. The world is a very unfair place, and first world people especially non-minorities never knew how bad it was for others. Perhaps post 2001 kind of leveled the Playing field in some ways.
Funny enough I went to Canada for a quick trip in with my (non-real ID) driver's license and birth certificate, stayed a couple extra days, and arrived back at the border just hours before the switchover to requiring a passport/real ID went into effect.
Come on, I 100% realize that jetpacks will probably always be impractical/unsafe. Although, I think there’s a lot of allure in the same way that there is for motorcycles. I imagine you would get this sense of free flying, like a bird — it just seems fun. And if we somehow magically engineered past the energy and safety problems, you’d have mobility like a helicopter, but without needing the helicopter pad in cities. Like how scooters and motorcycles can be more convenient in cities because they’re easier to park. Dream a little, it’s fun.
Jetpacks are unsafe when users can manipulate them and potentially crash them, or ignore safety warnings etc..
It's a lot safer if they are flown by AI. Possibly only reverting to manual control in an emergency and then only for a controlled AI assisted landing. For example.
That could prevent the scenario where terrorist with TNT strapped to his belt flies into a buildng.
On the other hand: People could still muck with the hardware and the software. Just making it more difficult doesn't rule it out.
It looks like Level 4/5 automation will never be achieved for cars , the good thing about that is not having to deal with the psychological problems that come with it.
Never? That's such a defeatist/pessimistic take. Looks like its way more difficult than expected, sure. Looks like new breakthroughs will be needed maybe.
Never seems unreasonable, in general and in specific.
I'm not even sure the first part is. I logged into a Guest Account on my Mac and the default for 'New tabs open with:' is the 'Start Page', which is a blank page with history, bookmarks, frequently visited, etc.
Oh forgive me, I've just checked are you're right. The new tab page is now frequently visited sites.
Our family Mac we got in ~2011 did show Apple as the new tab page, or at least the start page when you opened Safari after booting. However this must have changed in the last few (read: >5-7) years.
> Our family Mac we got in ~2011 did show Apple as the new tab page, or at least the start page when you opened Safari after booting
Pretty certain this is also incorrect.
My recollection seems to accord with the Wikipedia page on the history of the Safari browser which (although it doesn’t itemize the default StartPage for each version) doesn’t cite any inclusion of an AppStore link, as far as I can see.
It is correct, back in the Panther days when Safari was new the default home page was Apple.com.
I’m not sure how long they did that for, but like you said, what else were they supposed to do? It was a different time, homepages were treated differently.
> 2nd edit: this used to be the case many years ago, thanks for those who confirmed
No - what other posters 'confirmed' is that www.apple.com was one of the choices that could be made for a new tab or homepage - absolutely not the Apple store as you said.
Worth correcting yet again because of what's become a knee-jerk 'but whatabout Apple?' in comment threads about Google on HN.
I'd say they are analogous. If I go to apple.com it is the definition of an online store, there are a number of call to action "buy" buttons with pictures of various Apple devices.
I think you're being pedantic if you say apple.com is not the apple store. If I wanted to go to the apple store I'd go to apple.com.
How rude. They were economically shattered by being occupied by the USSR for decades. Lay off.