This seems like an odd post to me. Your headline argument is that you think SBF made an honest mistake, rather than wilfully misusing his usersā funds, and most commenters seem to be reacting to that claim. The claim seems likely wrong to me, but if you honestly believe it then Iām glad youāre sharing it and that itās getting discussed.
But in your third point (and maybe your second?) you seem to be defending the idea that even if SBF wilfully misused funds, then thatās still ok. It was a bad bet, but we should celebrate people who take risky, but positive EV, gambles, even if they strongly violate ethical norms. Is that a fair summary of what you believe, or am I misreading/āmisunderstanding? If it is, I think this post is very bad and it seems very worrying that itās currently got +ve karma.
But in your third point (and maybe your second?) you seem to be defending the idea that even if SBF wilfully misused funds, then thatās still ok. It was a bad bet, but we should celebrate people who take risky, but positive EV, gambles, even if they strongly violate ethical norms. Is that a fair summary of what you believe, or am I misreading/āmisunderstanding? If it is, I think this post is very bad and it seems very worrying that itās currently got +ve karma.
Specifically, he talks about while the heuristic ādonāt do fraudā is a good heuristic to have, ādonāt do mistakesā is not a good heuristic at all, and this is trivially true.
We canāt expect people to be perfect and never make mistakes, so why are you disagreeing with this.
This seems like an odd post to me. Your headline argument is that you think SBF made an honest mistake, rather than wilfully misusing his usersā funds, and most commenters seem to be reacting to that claim. The claim seems likely wrong to me, but if you honestly believe it then Iām glad youāre sharing it and that itās getting discussed.
But in your third point (and maybe your second?) you seem to be defending the idea that even if SBF wilfully misused funds, then thatās still ok. It was a bad bet, but we should celebrate people who take risky, but positive EV, gambles, even if they strongly violate ethical norms. Is that a fair summary of what you believe, or am I misreading/āmisunderstanding? If it is, I think this post is very bad and it seems very worrying that itās currently got +ve karma.
Specifically, he talks about while the heuristic ādonāt do fraudā is a good heuristic to have, ādonāt do mistakesā is not a good heuristic at all, and this is trivially true.
We canāt expect people to be perfect and never make mistakes, so why are you disagreeing with this.