3 ms·

Well, they aren't making sizeable political donations nor are they able to convince the politicians they're donating to that they're going to get a big return i

by qball 4y ago

Well, they aren't making sizeable political donations nor are they able to convince the politicians they're donating to that they're going to get a big return investing in his company. Sam Bankman-Fraud is still a free man because he did both.

vba616 4y ago
Your comment seems to be similar to others flooding every online discussion area, so I guess it's a common opinion. But you really think anyone has influence because of past donations? There's a famous quote: "what have you done for me lately?".
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- lakecresva 4y ago
  Those on the receiving end of SBF's generosity wouldn't want to send a message to future benefactors that their money won't actually get them what they want when the chips are down.
  - vba616 4y ago
    I mean, yes, sure, they wouldn't want to send that message, but they still have to motivate the future benefactors and not the past ones with what limited resources are available. I assume you have had plenty of experience in life where people praise you for one thing, but reward you for another.
    - true_religion 4y ago
      If SBF goes free or gets a Martha Stuart style low grade punishment, then he will be able to give millions in the future.
      - vba616 4y ago
        Speculation is risky. A bird in the hand... Slight tangent: It seems like there have been a lot of mentions of SBF on HN. Alex Mashinsky strikes me as an even less sympathetic character, who made some of the all time poorest aging comments prior to his downfall, like "either we're lying or the banks are lying", and yet I couldn't find a single thread with his name that had any comments on HN. There were quite a few Celsius threads, but "Mashinsky" doesn't seem to have attracted interest. I don't make up or subscribe to conspiracy theories, so I have no hypothesis to explain this, but it has long seemed inexplicable to me how some things get 700 comments here and others get zero without a difference that seems salient to me.

by qball 4y ago

vba616 4y ago

Your comment seems to be similar to others flooding every online discussion area, so I guess it's a common opinion. But you really think anyone has influence because of past donations? There's a famous quote: "what have you done for me lately?".

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
lakecresva 4y ago
Those on the receiving end of SBF's generosity wouldn't want to send a message to future benefactors that their money won't actually get them what they want when the chips are down.
- vba616 4y ago
  I mean, yes, sure, they wouldn't want to send that message, but they still have to motivate the future benefactors and not the past ones with what limited resources are available. I assume you have had plenty of experience in life where people praise you for one thing, but reward you for another.
  - true_religion 4y ago
    If SBF goes free or gets a Martha Stuart style low grade punishment, then he will be able to give millions in the future.
    - vba616 4y ago
      Speculation is risky. A bird in the hand... Slight tangent: It seems like there have been a lot of mentions of SBF on HN. Alex Mashinsky strikes me as an even less sympathetic character, who made some of the all time poorest aging comments prior to his downfall, like "either we're lying or the banks are lying", and yet I couldn't find a single thread with his name that had any comments on HN. There were quite a few Celsius threads, but "Mashinsky" doesn't seem to have attracted interest. I don't make up or subscribe to conspiracy theories, so I have no hypothesis to explain this, but it has long seemed inexplicable to me how some things get 700 comments here and others get zero without a difference that seems salient to me.