241–250 of 500 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
More like he moved into his parents’ attic? They don’t have basements in California :P
They do if you spend enough money. I met someone who was related to an executive of Intel and they had a basement with dumb waiter and a laundry chute from the other floors.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is there any evidence at all of him giving “similar” money to republicans, other than his own word (which is garbage)?
> Is there any evidence at all of him giving “similar” money to republicans, other than his own word (which is garbage)? The indictment (which required providing evidence to a grand jury for each count to establish probable cause) includes charges of illegal concealed-identity political donations. While it doesn't specify the recipients, this is consistent with his description of how he donated to Republicans to avoi…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Democrats' Senate Majority PAC is planning to return $1M contributed by SBF and $2M from Nishad Singh; the House Majority PAC got $6M from SBF and "will send funds in question wherever authorities instruct us". Source (and more details): https://www.cnbc.com/2022/12/20/ftx-democrats-senate-majorit... My understanding is that SBF also made similar contributions to Republicans and conservative PACs etc, but general…
Is there any evidence at all of him giving “similar” money to republicans, other than his own word (which is garbage)?
David Gerard has the best summary: ‘He was released on bail for a $250 million bond — “the largest ever pretrial bond,” apparently — secured only on his parents’ home in Palo Alto, where he will be living. ’SBF will surrender his passport and remain in home confinement with electronic monitoring — he’ll wear a bracelet. He will also be required to undergo regular mental health evaluation and treatment. No financial t…
$250m secures on their home?? How much is that valued at?
I wonder if this whole thing counts as “effective altruism”? Maybe he is effective at scaring other crypto “adventurers” (i.e. people who like to play with other people’s money as if they were in the wild west) and the number and size of scams diminishes in the future? That’d be a good badge to have on his boy-scout t-shirt (or whatever boy-scouts use).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's wrong that poor people who aren't a threat to society are imprisoned because they can't afford bail, not that rich people aren't. Don't think that the way to get rid of the disparity of privilege is to take it away - it is to grant it to more.
I see a lot of news articles in Seattle about people that were released from jail by a judge with no bail while they wait for trail and then go on to commit even more serious crimes (arson, rape and murder) in the following days. I think society struggles with knowing who is a threat and who isn't. The consequences of being wrong is rape, death, and arson. > released without bail and was arrested 10 hours later for a…
https://hachyderm.io/@mekkaokereke/109558870665603162
It notes that a Judge can still say that an offender should be remanded to pre-trial custody because they're a threat to the community.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's wrong that poor people who aren't a threat to society are imprisoned because they can't afford bail, not that rich people aren't. Don't think that the way to get rid of the disparity of privilege is to take it away - it is to grant it to more.
I see a lot of news articles in Seattle about people that were released from jail by a judge with no bail while they wait for trail and then go on to commit even more serious crimes (arson, rape and murder) in the following days. I think society struggles with knowing who is a threat and who isn't. The consequences of being wrong is rape, death, and arson. > released without bail and was arrested 10 hours later for a…
Yes, and that happens with people released on cash bail as well as no-cash-bail; there's no evidence, despite the fact that large no-cash-bail jurisdictions have existed in the US for quite some time (D.C. has been essentially no-cash-bail for three decades, for instance) that having money in the mix for pretrial release protects against that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> on bail for a $250 million bond — secured only on his parents’ home in Palo Alto Wait what? How does that work? I thought if the bond was $X, that literally means you either (a) give the court $X, cash only or (b) sit in jail until trial. How can his bond be set at $250 million, yet the court somehow isn't just making him sit in jail until and unless he either goes to trial and is found not guilty, or he coughs up…
A financial intermediary trusted by the court pledges to pay the court the 250M if SBF flees and the intermediary cannot find him and take him back into custody. For typical bail amounts i.e., $50k, the intermediary usually demands 10% of the $50k from the defendant (and his friends) as a deposit, but maybe SBF found an intermediary willing to make the pledge to the court for a deposit significantly less than 10% of…
The amount is large enough that even with 1% or 0.1% they could probably pay a professional bounty hunter to tail him for a week, reducing the odds of him escaping.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's because it makes the headlines- working out the real statistics wouldn't even be that hard and would totally remove the need for such sensationalist nonsense, but of course that doesn't pay the bills.
Uhhh… what? So what level of rape/murder is appropriate/acceptable for criminals out on bail to commit, statistically speaking of course? I’m pretty sure the rest of us think it should be 0… but maybe that is just me. 3 notable examples in the last 6 months in one area… not zero… not anywhere close.
edit: I think your edit made things a little clearer. I doubt we agree, but we've talked past each other here. The relevant statistic is [number of people who commit crimes on bail]/[number of people released on bail]. If we had Minority-Report-style precogs, we could have had 0 such cases in the last 6 months while denying only 3 more people bail. But we don't have that option- there's not much to be done about the sensitivity, so all we can do is crank the cutoff of doubt higher or lower.
With tens of thousands of people released on bail, and assuming that identifying the nth potential murderer roughly follows a power law distribution (a fairly reasonable assumption in a sensitivity/specificity situation like this) we're talking about jailing thousands of innocents to prevent one guilty man from going free. If look at violent crime in general the numbers are less skewed (around 2%), but I'd hope that most people balk at the idea of preemptively jailing ten people without trial to prevent just one from committing a crime. I mean, recidivism rates after prison are way higher than that- perhaps "the rest of us" would favor life sentences for every crime, but I doubt it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In this context; someone who can't afford bail makes someone a danger to the community?
If you have nothing, then it's pretty logical to think that they have less ties to the community they're in vs someone who has a home, business, etc and uprooting is much more painful if you try to flee.