AllHere CEO could be imprisoned for 40 years
11–20 of 33 posts
Re: AllHere CEO could be imprisoned for 40 years
#12The 'Black' part of this article's title seems a little weird
On the other hand, whenever a Black person is successful, it's okay to mention that in the headline.
But I agree it's a bit off. For example it's OK for the NYT to mention that SBF is a genius and that he's an effective altruist in headlines as long as his ponzi is not exposed, but as soon as it's exposed, suddenly no mention of "effective altruism" (despite several people from that movement personally and illegally benefiting from "donations" from SBF [1]) nor any mention of "genius" anymore.
We're kind of used to headlines working that way.
[1] even years and maybe even decades later there's hope some of these funds shall be clawed back from these people though (people who suddenly now have a very low profile)
Re: AllHere CEO could be imprisoned for 40 years
#13Re: AllHere CEO could be imprisoned for 40 years
#14Re: AllHere CEO could be imprisoned for 40 years
#15Limitless is BS, it’s better to know your limits.
Re: AllHere CEO could be imprisoned for 40 years
#16Re: AllHere CEO could be imprisoned for 40 years
#17Earlier quoted context omitted.
On the other hand, whenever a Black person is successful, it's okay to mention that in the headline.
> On the other hand, whenever a Black person is successful, it's okay to mention that in the headline. But I agree it's a bit off. For example it's OK for the NYT to mention that SBF is a genius and that he's an effective altruist in headlines as long as his ponzi is not exposed, but as soon as it's exposed, suddenly no mention of "effective altruism" (despite several people from that movement personally and illegall…
Re: AllHere CEO could be imprisoned for 40 years
#18Re: AllHere CEO could be imprisoned for 40 years
#19Who are these investors. Need to find myself a few dumb investors. Were these Sequoia?
Re: AllHere CEO could be imprisoned for 40 years
#20Earlier quoted context omitted.
> On the other hand, whenever a Black person is successful, it's okay to mention that in the headline. But I agree it's a bit off. For example it's OK for the NYT to mention that SBF is a genius and that he's an effective altruist in headlines as long as his ponzi is not exposed, but as soon as it's exposed, suddenly no mention of "effective altruism" (despite several people from that movement personally and illegall…
Effective altruism is called "taxation" in my country. It's been an ongoing success for a 1000 years.