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

Sam Bankman-Fried doesn't recall

theverge.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 123 posts

Re: Sam Bankman-Fried doesn't recall

#111

Post by jowea »

efitz wrote: post #8
dheera wrote: post #2

"don't recall" I'm guessing this is largely just an ass-covering strategy to avoid giving the opposing side an upper hand. If you say "yes" to anything you might give them verbal grounds to convict you of more than they can directly find and show external evidence for.

“I don’t remember” is still perjury if you can be reasonably expected to remember or if evidence can be provided that you remembered very recently.

Do people get prosecuted for perjury after getting a guilty sentence like that? I imagined the most important consequence of saying "I don't remember" is whether the jury finds you credible.

Re: Sam Bankman-Fried doesn't recall

#112

Post by jowea »

edgyquant wrote: post #28
pphysch wrote: post #10

> Behind all the finance sheets and code bases, the fall of FTX was in a way incredibly childish: a nerd posse running away with a bunch of other people’s money in the stupidest and simplest way possible. And yet our bimodal justice system spends huge amount of resources giving this 31yo fraudster every possible chance to escape the consequences, simply because he is a member of the elite.

Every US citizen is guaranteed a right to a trial by a jury.

Not everyone gets a top notch lawyer and money for bail through.

Re: Sam Bankman-Fried doesn't recall

#113

Post by JohnFen »

medler wrote: post #25

“I found myself reflecting on how smart the average person is. Maybe they don’t know calculus. Maybe they’ll never read Ulysses. Maybe they can’t code. But they definitely know how to identify bullshit when they see it.” How could anyone believe this? “Average” people fall for bullshit all the time.

> “Average” people fall for bullshit all the time.

Everyone falls for bullshit. Not all fall for the same flavor, but everyone has a flavor they'll fall for.

Re: Sam Bankman-Fried doesn't recall

#114

Post by JohnFen »

sgt101 wrote: post #70
Animats wrote: post #62

This is the worst case for a bullshitter - on trial, in a criminal court, under oath, being cross-examined, in front of a jury, with a competent prosecutor who has plenty of evidence.

I think that the defense (and SBF) must have concluded that they were looking at 40 years before he took the stand, and if it ends in him getting 80 does that really make a difference? Maybe, just maybe, he could have swung it - but it looks like he hasn't.

> does that really make a difference?

It does make a difference, because the length of your sentence is one of the factors used to determine when you're eligible for parole. That's why you sometimes see people handed ridiculous sentences, like 100+ years.

Re: Sam Bankman-Fried doesn't recall

#115

Post by SilasX »

fshbbdssbbgdd wrote: post #105
mpalmer wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It'd be one thing if the flowery writing were actually good, but the images don't even make sense. as prosecutor Danielle Sassoon went through a brutal line of questioning like a hot buzzsaw through a butter cow Shouldn't the brutal line of questioning be the buzzsaw, and SBF the butter?

Surely there’s a lot of competition and rush to publish news on this trial. Changing around the metaphors might not be the highest priority of any editors.

So don’t change it around. Just reject the metaphor usage entirely.

“If you don’t understand metaphors, please, just don’t use them.”

Re: Sam Bankman-Fried doesn't recall

#116

Post by nunez »

mvdtnz wrote: post #33

This article has some really great stuff in it but I wish the author would cut the flowery bullshit and most importantly stop trying to make the piece about themselves. I do not care about how much YOU cringed, about the "holy fucking shit" you wrote on YOUR notes, etc. So many journalists nowadays think THEY are the story. Stick to the real story, keep yourself out of it.

Flowery #millenial bullshit is the verges style, and for the not-so-flowery bullshit that SBF and friends did with other peoples money, the snark is welcome.

Re: Sam Bankman-Fried doesn't recall

#117

Post by Animats »

JohnFen wrote: post #114
sgt101 wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that the defense (and SBF) must have concluded that they were looking at 40 years before he took the stand, and if it ends in him getting 80 does that really make a difference? Maybe, just maybe, he could have swung it - but it looks like he hasn't.

> does that really make a difference? It does make a difference, because the length of your sentence is one of the factors used to determine when you're eligible for parole. That's why you sometimes see people handed ridiculous sentences, like 100+ years.

This is a federal crime. There is no parole. Not since Reagan was president.

Re: Sam Bankman-Fried doesn't recall

#118

Post by Jcowell »

contravariant wrote: post #53
medler wrote: post #25

“I found myself reflecting on how smart the average person is. Maybe they don’t know calculus. Maybe they’ll never read Ulysses. Maybe they can’t code. But they definitely know how to identify bullshit when they see it.” How could anyone believe this? “Average” people fall for bullshit all the time.

If we're derailing the discussion anyway, 'knowing' calculus and reading Ulysses is more of a matter of interest than intelligence, and being able to code covers a wide spectrum of skill.

Not really interest more so than opportunity or need. i’m willing to bet more so people know calculus because they had to (for a degree) then they wanted to

Re: Sam Bankman-Fried doesn't recall

#119

Post by InitialLastName »

mvdtnz wrote: post #89
dheera wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I would suggest you see a doctor because that's not normal at all. I'd suggest they do NOT see a doctor because it would be an evolutionary advantage in court, as well as lots of other places. It's also just all-around generally good practice to live in the present, not the past.

> It's also just all-around generally good practice to live in the present, not the past. Maybe not when you're testifying under oath.

Is it better to say "I don't remember that confession" or "I confessed" under oath?

Re: Sam Bankman-Fried doesn't recall

#120

Post by JohnFen »

Animats wrote: post #117
JohnFen wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> does that really make a difference? It does make a difference, because the length of your sentence is one of the factors used to determine when you're eligible for parole. That's why you sometimes see people handed ridiculous sentences, like 100+ years.

This is a federal crime. There is no parole. Not since Reagan was president.

Ah, my mistake!
Post reply on HN