3 ms·
Hindsight bias, and you're wrong by saying that the $5k were conditional on the line item change (they weren't). Here's the quote from the indictment: > J
by n2d4 1y ago
Hindsight bias, and you're wrong by saying that the $5k were conditional on the line item change (they weren't). Here's the quote from the indictment:
> JAVICE responded to Scientist-1 that same day, “Can you send the invoice back at $18k and just one line item for data analysis?”
>
> Scientist-1 replied, “Wow. Thank you. Here is the new invoice.” Attached to this email was a new invoice, now for $18,000, with the previous specific descriptions removed and replaced by the one-line description, “Data science services”
It is very common for large companies to ask for changes to line items as it helps the finance team categorize. Also, it's clear from this conversation that the scientist believed the $5k to be a generous tip.
Even if all of that weren't the case, this should be a case of innocence until proven guilty; it's easy to see the crime in hindsight, but if you suspect nothing that thought might just not cross your mind in the first place.
- teraflop 1y agoYou can call it hindsight bias if you want. What you seem to be saying is that your heuristics would have told you that Javice had no nefarious intent based on that exchange, and you would of course have been wrong. My heuristics are very different. It is very obvious to me that the extra $5k was "conditional" because if Scientist-1 hadn't sent back an invoice for $18,000, he wouldn't have gotten paid $18,000. I have never heard of a company giving a 40% "tip" after the fact to a contractor who was already billing $600/hour. It seems like Scientist-1 did not question this tip because it didn't benefit him to do so. He didn't suspect anything because he was motivated against suspicion. That's a lack of integrity.