I’d have found it okay if the question had explicitly asked for just good summaries of the trial coverage or the sentencing report.
(E.g., there’s the twitter handle Inner city press that was tweeting transcript summaries of every day on trial, or the Carl Reilly youtube channel for daily summaries of the trial. And there’s the more recent sentencing report that someone here linked to.)
Instead, the question came across as though there’s maybe a mystery here for which we need the collective smarts and wisdom of the EA forum.
There are people who do trial coverage for a living who’ve focused on this case. EAs are no longer best-positioned to opine on this, so it’s a bit weird to imply that this is an issue that EAs should discuss (as though it’s the early days of Covid or the immediate aftermath of FTX, when the EA forum arguably had some interesting alpha).
It’s also distracting.
I think part of what made me not like this question is that OP admits on the one hand that they struggled with finding good info on Google, but then they still give their own summary about what they’ve found so far. Why give these half-baked takes if you’re just a not-yet-well-informed person who’s struggled to find good summaries? It feels like “discussion baiting.”
Now, if someone did think that SBF/FTX didn’t do anything illegal, I think that could be worth discussing, but it should start with a high-quality post where someone demonstrates that they’ve done their homework and have good reasons for disagreeing with those who have followed the trial coverage and concluded, like the jury, that SBF/FTX engaged in fraud.
I think the tone I wrote it in gave the impression that I was saying “I don’t see how what they did is illegal” rather than “what did they do that was illegal”. I try and avoid that kind of thing next time.
I asked this question on the EA Forum just because EA is why I’m interested in the story, and I trust the EA Forum to produce good discussion that gets to heart of what I’m interested in, compared to the only other place where I know I can ask a direct question, which is Reddit. Any implication that there was still a mystery to be figured out was accidental.
As for the half-baked takes—actually I don’t think I gave any. None of what I said was an opinion it was simply an account of the easily findable facts.
I downvoted the question.
I’d have found it okay if the question had explicitly asked for just good summaries of the trial coverage or the sentencing report.
(E.g., there’s the twitter handle Inner city press that was tweeting transcript summaries of every day on trial, or the Carl Reilly youtube channel for daily summaries of the trial. And there’s the more recent sentencing report that someone here linked to.)
Instead, the question came across as though there’s maybe a mystery here for which we need the collective smarts and wisdom of the EA forum.
There are people who do trial coverage for a living who’ve focused on this case. EAs are no longer best-positioned to opine on this, so it’s a bit weird to imply that this is an issue that EAs should discuss (as though it’s the early days of Covid or the immediate aftermath of FTX, when the EA forum arguably had some interesting alpha).
It’s also distracting.
I think part of what made me not like this question is that OP admits on the one hand that they struggled with finding good info on Google, but then they still give their own summary about what they’ve found so far. Why give these half-baked takes if you’re just a not-yet-well-informed person who’s struggled to find good summaries? It feels like “discussion baiting.”
Now, if someone did think that SBF/FTX didn’t do anything illegal, I think that could be worth discussing, but it should start with a high-quality post where someone demonstrates that they’ve done their homework and have good reasons for disagreeing with those who have followed the trial coverage and concluded, like the jury, that SBF/FTX engaged in fraud.
Thanks, I appreciate the explanation.
I think the tone I wrote it in gave the impression that I was saying “I don’t see how what they did is illegal” rather than “what did they do that was illegal”. I try and avoid that kind of thing next time.
I asked this question on the EA Forum just because EA is why I’m interested in the story, and I trust the EA Forum to produce good discussion that gets to heart of what I’m interested in, compared to the only other place where I know I can ask a direct question, which is Reddit. Any implication that there was still a mystery to be figured out was accidental.
As for the half-baked takes—actually I don’t think I gave any. None of what I said was an opinion it was simply an account of the easily findable facts.