The author effectively covers this rebuttal with a catch-all early on, but this still reads a bit like a defense of "fake it until you make it". The implication

The author effectively covers this rebuttal with a catch-all early on, but this still reads a bit like a defense of "fake it until you make it". The implication being that SBF (or e.g. Elizabeth Holmse) were only _somewhat_ responsible for their fraudulent activities - and that any "normal" person would have trouble discerning whether or not their actions are fraudulent or merely "overly optimistic leadership". I wish I could say the era of "move fast, break things" is over, but I have lost all faith. Can we please just stop all this craziness now? Good leadership should be about having good intuition, good instincts and planning for _long_ time horizons. Instead the valley's "idols" are Zuckerberg and Elon and a bunch of quants obsessed with financial engineering.