Recent comments in /f/technology

wampa604 t1_jckofei wrote

Reply to comment by [deleted] in No one will replace Silicon Valley Bank and that’s a big problem for tech by Hrmbee

And that 30% run was triggered by techbros who want to kill banks...

Banks usually have a concentration cap on deposits to prevent any small group from becoming able to kill the bank. But Thiel and them were left unchecked.... prolly cause SVB had no Chief Risk Officer (apparently), and instead focused on having things like a Chief Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Officer.

A 30% run would kill most FIs. Interestingly, some jurisdictions/FI ecosystems have/had ways to deal with it -- though regulators have dismantled those mechanisms. For example: Canada's BC Credit Union system used a pooled liquidity system for decades. Liquidity reqs between CUs and Banks in Canada vary, but generally CUs need 11% banks need like 6%. What CUs used to do with their liquidity pooling, is they'd all store their liquidity with a central trade association (Central1). There's around 50 or so CUs in the province still, though that number shrinks all the time. By pooling their liquidity, all peers of a like size/smaller size, would generally be 'fine' if there was a run on any one institution -- a run on a $200 million CU doesn't mean anything, if the pool has $1b from 50 like-sized participating CUs. They also paid into CUDIC, which is/was another fund specifically for providing deposit insurance if any CU did go under.

The regulators basically destroyed most of that, and they had the ability to do so in part because BC offers 100% deposit guarantees -- which means the government calls all the shots. The regulators demanded that CUs stop pooling liquidity, and instead assign it to individual institutions. They also strongly encouraged/pushed CUs into entering the bond market... which as we've seen, worked out well for SVB. The regulators basically demand that the CU system, which was setup to offer an alternative to banks/bank structures, behave like banks...

−1

jormungandrsjig t1_jcknp7i wrote

Reply to comment by na_gooyin in Rolls-Royce secures funds to develop nuclear reactor for moon base by Vailhem

> Following up on point A, let’s say hypothetically the reactor does have a meltdown and we have another Chernobyl disaster. How will we suppress a reactor meltdown were it to happen in space, away from the equipment and resources we have down here on earth? How will it affect future missions to the moon?

Use an oversized spatula and flip it off the surface into interstellar space.

4

Autotomatomato t1_jcklpri wrote

Reply to comment by bicyclesausage22 in No one will replace Silicon Valley Bank and that’s a big problem for tech by Hrmbee

Yeah this is the framing they are trying instead of actually dealing with the fact that this would not have happened if republicans werent so drunk on bullshit.

​

Lets blame wokeness, women executives, anything outside of bullshit lax policy instituted by unserious and clearly stupid politicians who have no idea how any of this really works.

5

TechNickL t1_jckiy4y wrote

Reply to comment by jennybearyay in Rolls-Royce secures funds to develop nuclear reactor for moon base by Vailhem

Realistically, it won't.

a) reactor meltdowns don't cause nuclear explosions like a bomb does. They just get radiation all over the place. Chernobyl was a pressure explosion, and it was an exceptionally badly built and operated reactor.

b) the amount of radiation that the sun puts out that hits the earth is orders of magnitude greater than anything man-made could ever create.

19