Bankman-crickets / Musk-endlessly fascinating

[Ken]

I recently heard about some project where software engineers were going to do junkets to remote villages in the western highlands of Guatemala to teach Mayan villagers how to code.

When all you have is a hammer…

I mean it’s not inconceivable that they could use the skills as there is a software industry in Guatemala City and people doing coding. But they are super bright techie types from the city who have been doing it since they were 6 years old who are competing for those precious jobs. There aren’t going to be coding jobs in remote rural Guatemala for people who have maybe a 4th grade education.

It’s like how government job programs here in the US want to teach coding to 50 year old out-of-work loggers and expect that they are going to be able to compete with the 17 year old uber-nerds who spend all their waking moments in the computer engineering lab at my HS creating their own apps (and hacking) and who are are competing to get into the computer engineering program up at UW so they can work at Microsoft or Amazon.

[temporal1]

Doesn't sound like crickets to me. Bankman is getting plenty of attention.

It’s a month later. Still not comparable to Musk (or the former Bernie Madoff scandal.)

When all you have is a hammer…

yeah. i don’t imagine great things resulting from pushing so many into tech ed+careers. there will be a human price.


”Sam Bankman-Fried's parents are reportedly in the Bahamas with him,
and his father pushed a Stanford law class he was set to teach to the next quarter”
https://www.businessinsider.com/sam-ban ... rt-2022-12
i suppose the expectation should be for Sammy to claim mental illness as his legal defense.

[temporal1]

Sam Bankman-Fried's parents were at his hearing in the Bahamas, and his mother laughed during the proceedings, report says
https://www.businessinsider.com/sam-ban ... ed-2022-12

Sam Bankman-Fried appeared Tuesday at a hearing in the Bahamas with his parents in attendance, according to multiple reports, including from The New York Times and the cryptocurrency site CoinDesk.

At the hearing, which largely focused on whether Bankman-Fried would be released on bail, the former FTX CEO indicated that he was not waiving his right to challenge his extradition to the US, the CoinDesk report said. The site, which was reporting live from Nassau in the Bahamas, broke the news in November of the financial links between FTX and Bankman-Fried's trading firm, Alameda Research.

During the proceedings, Bankman-Fried's mother, Barbara Fried, laughed when her son was called a "fugitive," reported CoinDesk,
which described his parents as showing both "dejection and defiance." She also "clenched her jaw and chewed on the frames of her glasses," The Times reported.

His father, Joseph Bankman, "occasionally put his fingers in his ears as if to drown out the sound of the proceedings," CoinDesk said.

The entitled apple doesn’t fall far from the entitled tree?

[temporal1]

Lots of circus in process?

”Alleged fraudster Sam Bankman-Fried rejected after begging judge for bail, citing vegan diet and ADD”
https://www.bizpacreview.com/2022/12/14 ... d-1316861/

[Ken]

Doesn't sound like the crickets are very loud if you are finding so much endless trivial news coverage of Bankman including such trivialities as his mother's reaction to his extradition and what kind of diet he has.

[temporal1]

Doesn't sound like the crickets are very loud if you are finding so much endless trivial news coverage of Bankman including such trivialities as his mother's reaction to his extradition and what kind of diet he has.

it’s a month later.
evenso, volumes of reports do not compare with Musk, or, years ago, Bernie Madoff.

[Moses]

Bankman-crickets / Musk-endlessly fascinating

The vastly different public response to Sam Bankman-Fried (FTX) versus Elon Musk (Twitter) has been jarring.
Including on this forum. Pages+pages of emotional outpouring on evil Musk.

Could it be? - - blatant+routine partisan hypocrisy? uhhh.

NYT may be tip-toeing in:


Why the Crypto Collapse Matters
The failure of the cryptocurrency exchange FTX put the entire industry under scrutiny.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/17/brie ... e-ftx.html

How could a $32 billion company vaporize overnight?
That’s what anyone watching the sudden collapse of FTX, a hot cryptocurrency start-up that plunged into bankruptcy last week, might be puzzling over.

It will take time — and multiple federal investigations — to fully understand what happened behind the scenes at FTX, a Bahamas-based crypto exchange. But the impact is already becoming clear. Lawmakers are calling for more oversight. Crypto die-hards are trying to distance themselves. Critics of this sector of finance are crowing. And for those of you who had, until now, managed to ignore the rise and rise and rise of crypto as a phenomenon? First of all, good for you. And second, you may want to watch this one play out. I’ll explain why shortly.

But first, here is the simplest explanation of what happened that I can manage:
FTX let people and companies buy and sell digital currencies, holding billions of dollars’ worth of customer deposits.
FTX’s founder, Sam Bankman-Fried, also created an investment fund that trades cryptocurrencies called Alameda Research.
The businesses were supposed to be separate, but this year, Alameda needed cash and apparently dipped into FTX’s customer deposits. Then, this month, FTX customers became worried about their deposits and rushed to withdraw them, setting off a bank run and pushing FTX into bankruptcy.

The apparent commingling of funds between Alameda and FTX is highly suspicious and could lead to criminal fraud charges and lawsuits. The Securities and Exchange Commission and Justice Department are investigating. I want to explain today why the disintegration of FTX matters — it’s more than simply one man’s financial catastrophe. .. ..

It's possible that there are various factors at play that contribute to the different public responses to Sam Bankman-Fried and Elon Musk. It could be due to a variety of things, including their respective industries, their personal histories and actions, and their public image. It's also worth considering that people may have different opinions and perspectives on these individuals, and that these opinions may be influenced by a variety of factors including personal values, experiences, and biases.

It's important to remember that it is possible for people to hold different views and opinions, and that it is okay to disagree with others. It's also important to try to approach discussions and debates with an open mind and a willingness to consider different perspectives.

[Ken]

It's possible that there are various factors at play that contribute to the different public responses to Sam Bankman-Fried and Elon Musk. It could be due to a variety of things, including their respective industries, their personal histories and actions, and their public image. It's also worth considering that people may have different opinions and perspectives on these individuals, and that these opinions may be influenced by a variety of factors including personal values, experiences, and biases.

It is not only possible, it is absolutely the case that there are different factors at play. Completely different circumstances.

Elon has made himself the public face of Twitter and is purposefully driving as much media coverage as he can with his endless tweeting, "reveals" and overtly public management of the company through public tweets and such. From his point of view, the more media attention and the more traffic he drives to Twitter the better. Front page coverage is his objective. He is like Trump in that respect. No publicity is bad publicity if it drives page views and he gets to control the narrative. People are talking about Elon Musk and not Zuckerberg or Bezos or Gates or other tech billionaires because that is what he wants.

SBF is a common (or uncommon) criminal who is seeking to wiggle his way out of having overtly stolen billions of dollars from the investors who trusted their deposits to his company. He is only in the news to the extent that he is trying to manage the narrative, but at this point his lawyers have no doubt told him in no uncertain terms to shut his trap and stop incriminating himself with every public interview.

[Moses]

It's possible that there are various factors at play that contribute to the different public responses to Sam Bankman-Fried and Elon Musk. It could be due to a variety of things, including their respective industries, their personal histories and actions, and their public image. It's also worth considering that people may have different opinions and perspectives on these individuals, and that these opinions may be influenced by a variety of factors including personal values, experiences, and biases.

It is not only possible, it is absolutely the case that there are different factors at play. Completely different circumstances.

Elon has made himself the public face of Twitter and is purposefully driving as much media coverage as he can with his endless tweeting, "reveals" and overtly public management of the company through public tweets and such. From his point of view, the more media attention and the more traffic he drives to Twitter the better. Front page coverage is his objective. He is like Trump in that respect. No publicity is bad publicity if it drives page views and he gets to control the narrative. People are talking about Elon Musk and not Zuckerberg or Bezos or Gates or other tech billionaires because that is what he wants.

SBF is a common (or uncommon) criminal who is seeking to wiggle his way out of having overtly stolen billions of dollars from the investors who trusted their deposits to his company. He is only in the news to the extent that he is trying to manage the narrative, but at this point his lawyers have no doubt told him in no uncertain terms to shut his trap and stop incriminating himself with every public interview.

It is certainly true that individuals in the public eye, such as Elon Musk and Sam Bankman-Fried, can have very different public personas and can be subject to different types of media coverage and public response. It is also true that people's actions can influence their public reputation and the way they are perceived by others.

It is important to consider multiple sources of information and to try to understand the context and circumstances surrounding a person or event before forming an opinion. It is also important to remember that people are complex and that it is possible for someone to have both positive and negative qualities. It is not productive or fair to make broad judgments about a person based on limited information or to engage in personal attacks.

[temporal1]

Moses:
It is certainly true that individuals in the public eye, such as Elon Musk and Sam Bankman-Fried, can have very different public personas and can be subject to different types of media coverage and public response. It is also true that people's actions can influence their public reputation and the way they are perceived by others.

It is important to consider multiple sources of information and to try to understand the context and circumstances surrounding a person or event before forming an opinion. It is also important to remember that people are complex and that it is possible for someone to have both positive and negative qualities. It is not productive or fair to make broad judgments about a person based on limited information or to engage in personal attacks.

Moses,
If i read correctly, i don’t disagree with what you’re saying. (i hope you will extend like grace to me on this topic.)
i’ll try to add some context, not excuse, for this thread, and my thinking when i started it.

1) a month ago, this forum was “all about” Elon Musk, some interested, a couple loathing/criticizing him. lots of interest, in msm and on this forum. some sweeping critical judgments regarding Musk. (this has not stopped in the mainstream.)

2) next, i stumbled upon the Sam B-Fried report, which seemed wildly important, yet, AT THE TIME, “crickets.”

3) i chose to compare SBF with Musk, based on the mere VOLUME of media content, nothing/little else.

4) to my understanding, THE BEST comparison to SBF is BERNIE MADOFF, he went to prison, he died a natural death in prison.
certain reports stated what SBF did was “WORSE-THAN” Bernie Madoff. [time MAY tell.]

5) i’m not sure many n this forum are old enough to recall Bernie Madoff’s scandal (that harmed so many) - NOR msm coverage of him. i’m not interested in getting into it, beyond mentioning his name. (everyone present has quick sources to search.)

6) i’m not trying to pass judgment on any of these guys who’ve found themselves in THE HOT SEAT for alleged financial scandals,
nor for Elon, doing business as he sees fit, rattling cages of some powerful elites.

7) to reiterate, my original OP questions were INTENDED to be about (subjective and biased) msm coverage of various reports,
content not mattering much, bias appears to reign supreme - regardless of content.

8) far less than interest in any individual “sinner” my questions were more questions about the core problem of media bias, esp strong lib, and strong lib self-serving bias.

i’ll suggest the SAM HARRIS topic as another example of “what’s going on” in msm, in both “news” and “entertainment” reporting.
my opinion is, there’s a LOT of msm noise, but it’s neither news nor entertainment.
SAM HARRIS
http://forum.mennonet.com/viewtopic.php ... lit=harris

people are full of opinions, most eventually rely on: INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY.

i hope that helps with context.
i’m not the best writer you’ll ever come across. i’ll try to clarify as best i’m able.