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

71–80 of 123 posts

Re: Sam Bankman-Fried doesn't recall

#71

Post by bagels »

mpalmer wrote: post #39
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.

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?

Typically bandsaws are used to process cows anyways, so it makes even less sense.

Re: Sam Bankman-Fried doesn't recall

#72

Post by closewith »

NegativeK wrote: post #58
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.

It's some gross arrogance to assume that smart people, for whatever the author thinks that even means, won't be tricked by a scam at some point in their lives.

I'm not even convinced intelligence generally correlates with bullshit detection.

Re: Sam Bankman-Fried doesn't recall

#73

Post by omarfarooq »

duped wrote: post #66
omarfarooq wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't see an issue with that here, she was present in the courtroom so the personal narrative is warranted, and I don't see that got in the way at all. Adds a human element. With that being said, you can copy and paste the article in ChatGPT and have it render the way you want. What a time to be alive!

> so the personal narrative is warranted, and I don't see that got in the way at all. I would actually like to know what SBF said on the stand that caused the reactions in the gallery/jury and not the author's personal reaction. ChatGPT can't do that because the author left out information.

That information is literally the headline of the piece and the meat of the article.

Perhaps you want the full transcript.

Re: Sam Bankman-Fried doesn't recall

#74

Post by 0cf8612b2e1e »

garciasn wrote: post #29
0cf8612b2e1e wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does he also have perfect recollection for the defense’s questions before he gets struck by amnesia?

I agree that agreeing to be questioned and then saying you don't recall endlessly is mostly absurd. However, you know he has gone through hours of very recent prep with his defense lawyers about the specific questions he'll be asked by the team. So, it's not exactly fair to accuse him of having perfect recall for his defense lawyer's questions and not as much for the prosecution.

Surely the defense team would game theory the case and prepare for likely prosecution questions. Those are the hardest ones for which you need to prepare.

Re: Sam Bankman-Fried doesn't recall

#75

Post by closewith »

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.

I wonder if that's true. Right up until today, I think he thought he could walk on many or all of the charges through his guile.

Re: Sam Bankman-Fried doesn't recall

#76

Post by anon25783 »

pcthrowaway wrote: post #27
bcrosby95 wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When you're a relatively intelligent human that isn't impaired in some way? lying

> that isn't impaired in some way Sounds like a tall order for SBF

I wonder if he's going through amphetamine withdrawal? That could certainly make your recall and precision bad. Still doesn't mean he isn't a massive liar

Re: Sam Bankman-Fried doesn't recall

#77

Post by closewith »

mvdtnz wrote: post #43
sieste wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

You don't recall anything you said more than 5 minutes ago? Even from prepared statements in court, or in rehearsed public speaking situations, or in one-off conversations with celebrity podcast hosts? I would suggest you see a doctor because that's not normal at all.

I mean, there's plenty of evidence to show that we don't accurately remember what we said in all those situations. At best, we think we do.

Re: Sam Bankman-Fried doesn't recall

#78

Post by gizajob »

mpalmer wrote: post #39
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.

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?

It’s strange how the writer seems to excuse themselves the cliche of saying “like a hot knife through butter” by jazzing it up. “A hot buzzsaw through a butter cow” would just make a huge mess everywhere, not get to the heart of the issue quickly. Mixing metaphors isn’t good writing, and getting them wrong makes for very poor style, but the writer (even though I enjoyed this article) seems to consider themselves a great stylist despite not thinking about the implications of this metaphoric language.

Re: Sam Bankman-Fried doesn't recall

#79

Post by whizzter »

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.

I'd say that it's rather used as a device for underscoring how important the previous passage was, skimming an article it breaks up the monotonity of recounting so that the reader gets a slight pause to reflect on why the break is there and connect it to the obvious lie just presented before.

Re: Sam Bankman-Fried doesn't recall

#80

Post by dheera »

mvdtnz wrote: post #43
sieste wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

You don't recall anything you said more than 5 minutes ago? Even from prepared statements in court, or in rehearsed public speaking situations, or in one-off conversations with celebrity podcast hosts? I would suggest you see a doctor because that's not normal at all.

> 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.

Post reply on HN