Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The United States of America vs. Samuel Bankman-Fried Indictment [pdf]

justice.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 748 posts

Re: The United States of America vs. Samuel Bankman-Fried Indictment [pdf]

#191

Post by p0pcult »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #63
danso wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm surprised this classic video is 10+ years old but has only 18M views. edit: Saw that the professor, James Duane [0], has his own Wikipedia page, almost entirely on the popularity of the Youtube lecture. Even more surprising, his Talk page seems to be free of debate over Duane's notability. Pretty impressive for a single videoed lecture! [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Duane_(professor)

Should be shown in elementary schools as part of the curriculum.

But then youd be disrupting the school-to-prison pipeline![1]

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/School-to-prison_pipeline

Re: The United States of America vs. Samuel Bankman-Fried Indictment [pdf]

#192

Post by revscat »

ivraatiems wrote: post #12

How anyone could look at this man's behavior over the last few weeks and not think he was on a fast track to a federal penitentiary is beyond me. A word to the unwise: If you have done something, anything, that you have a credible reason to believe the United States government thinks is illegal, shut up . Do not do any of the following: * Go on a podcast and talk about it * Go on a Twitter livestream and talk about i…

Donald Trump did exactly the opposite of your advice at every turn, yet remains free and unindicted. SBF’s main mistake seems to have been not cultivating political clout before committing fraud, not anything related to what he said or did.

Re: The United States of America vs. Samuel Bankman-Fried Indictment [pdf]

#193

Post by p0pcult »

rootusrootus wrote: post #103
Xeoncross wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't pity SBF, but this advice is important for innocent citizens. It's unfortunate that anything you say to law enforcement can be used against you - but none of it can be used for you. A police officer can testify against you, but if they try to support you it will be dismissed as "hearsay".

> It's unfortunate that anything you say to law enforcement can be used against you - but none of it can be used for you. Is it really unfortunate? There is simply an implicit assumption that humans avoid incriminating themselves when possible but are very quick to offer excuses. That seems to align pretty well with my experience. Therefore, we assume that if someone says something contrary to their own interest is i…

>Is it really unfortunate?

Yes; the system should not be biased towards guilt.

Re: The United States of America vs. Samuel Bankman-Fried Indictment [pdf]

#194

Post by NaturalPhallacy »

cycrutchfield wrote: post #132
Loughla wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The cynic in me says that it really does matter who you defraud. Where Madoff went wrong was ripping off other rich people. So, if SBF defrauded more upper- than middle- or working-class folks, then he's screwed.

This is silly. You think the career DOJ prosecutors are looking at the list of victims and only deciding to prosecute if there is a rich person on the list?

No post body was provided.

Re: The United States of America vs. Samuel Bankman-Fried Indictment [pdf]

#196

Post by etothepii »

eddsh1994 wrote: post #177
bredren wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do we have some examples of people who have amassed great real or perceived fortunes (and power) that have not become drunk on it? Musk on stage with Chapelle last night, Elizabeth Holmes, or SBF’s whole schtick, who are the ones who have kept their feet on the ground? What are the attributes of these others who don’t lose themselves in fawning attention and (sometimes short-lived) mountains of capital?

Warren Buffet? Maybe Bill Gates? Queen Elizabeth II?

I don't think QE2 amassed her wealth and power. She was, officially, given it by God.

Re: The United States of America vs. Samuel Bankman-Fried Indictment [pdf]

#197

Post by NaturalPhallacy »

whatshisface wrote: post #176
cycrutchfield wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is silly. You think the career DOJ prosecutors are looking at the list of victims and only deciding to prosecute if there is a rich person on the list?

A lot of the things that defraud non-wealthy people (multi-level marketing, all of those "supplements" you can buy in the medicine isle, false advertising) aren't illegal or practical to sue over. Let's look at one particular example, the stop the steal scam. Thousands of people were tricked in to donating to the ringleaders of an impossible political cause based on false claims, and none of them are going to jail fo…

Or BLM leaders taking millions in donations and using it to buy houses.

Re: The United States of America vs. Samuel Bankman-Fried Indictment [pdf]

#198

Post by [deleted] »

revscat wrote: post #192
ivraatiems wrote: post #12

How anyone could look at this man's behavior over the last few weeks and not think he was on a fast track to a federal penitentiary is beyond me. A word to the unwise: If you have done something, anything, that you have a credible reason to believe the United States government thinks is illegal, shut up . Do not do any of the following: * Go on a podcast and talk about it * Go on a Twitter livestream and talk about i…

Donald Trump did exactly the opposite of your advice at every turn, yet remains free and unindicted. SBF’s main mistake seems to have been not cultivating political clout before committing fraud, not anything related to what he said or did.

[deleted]

Re: The United States of America vs. Samuel Bankman-Fried Indictment [pdf]

#200

Post by mlindner »

bredren wrote: post #135
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> How anyone could look at this man's behavior over the last few weeks and not think he was on a fast track to a federal penitentiary is beyond me Seeing how thoroughly he convinced people that he had political influence, and given his general lack of awareness, I’m willing to give merit to his believing he was immune. Similar to how people outside securities think insider trading is more rampant than it is, insider…

Do we have some examples of people who have amassed great real or perceived fortunes (and power) that have not become drunk on it? Musk on stage with Chapelle last night, Elizabeth Holmes, or SBF’s whole schtick, who are the ones who have kept their feet on the ground? What are the attributes of these others who don’t lose themselves in fawning attention and (sometimes short-lived) mountains of capital?

Elon on a comedian's show is not not having your feet on the ground...

You realize that he's not asking to go on the show, people are asking him to come on the show. Your questions should be directed at Dave Chappele.

Post reply on HN