41–50 of 123 posts
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.
“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.
Think of how smart the average person is. Now realize that half the world is _even smarter_. It blows my mind.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Definitely - but it's still notable that he's doing this after voluntarily taking the stand.
I really don't understand what the big deal is with "Do you remember saying 'these precise words'?" - "No, but it sounds like something I could have said." Given how human memory works, that should be the honest answer for everything anyone ever said more than 5 minutes ago. Why does the article turn this into a major gotcha?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Think of how smart the average person is. Now realize that half the world is _even smarter_. It blows my mind.
You're talking about median, not average.
Besides, it is a paraphrase of a well-known George Carlin quote.
“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.
Because like he said, the average person is not so smart, I guess including themselves haha.
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.
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.
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?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, not a lawyer so maybe theres some nuance here but.. I don't get taking the stand voluntarily to just say "I don't recall" endlessly? At some point does the judge tell you to GTFO and strike all your testimony? Can they instruct the jury in some manner harmful to you as a result of your obvious malign intent? Etc..
> Can they instruct the jury in some manner harmful to you as a result of your obvious malign intent? Etc.. The judge doesn't need to do anything, the jury should have no problem putting two and two together on their own. Someone who makes up an elaborate story, but can't recall any of the details when cross-examined looks guilty as sin.
If SBF doesn't go down & spend time behind bars, its going to open the gates to a lot more fraud.
SBF did things that would make even the worst Wall St actors from the GFC blush. No arcane accounting/valuation rules, risk models, capital requirement arb, regulatory capture, misaligned incentives, loose prop trading rules.. letter of law vs spirit of law stuff, etc.
SBF committed the most open, direct, simple to understand version of all the fraud people imagined behind the GFC. Primarily he moved a substantial portion of customer deposits into prop trading accounts and then lost the money by trading poorly.
He literally lied about things like having insurance, seemingly didn't keep any true books & records (and asked for 7 variations of a balance sheet to find one that looked least bad).
You have emails where his dad that he hired as legal is approving transfers of customers money for uses like buying his parents a condo, lol.
"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.
What is amazing is that nobody infiltrated their structure and ran off with the money. There are sophisticated criminal organisations out there that go to much, much more effort to obtain funding. Just to take Hezbollah since it's all over the news recently: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Funding_of_Hezbollah#Latin_Ame...