SBF was scheduled to speak to a Stanford class in a Tech ethics course | Hacker News Reader

SBF was scheduled to speak to a Stanford class in a Tech ethics course

stanforddaily.com

77 pointsBLanen14 comments

Over the course of SBF's home detention, a number of members of the public submitted letters to Judge Kaplan expressing their "dissatisfaction" with SBF's bail conditions and these letters were docketed.

The media is unlikely to report on these submissions so here they are, for anyone who is interested. One of them is handwritten.

https://ia601508.us.archive.org/25/items/gov.uscourts.nysd.5...

Honesty the "Democrats vote to send funds to Ukraine, Ukraine invests in FTX, FTX crypto was funnelled back to the same democrats" doesn't give much credibility to such letter.

Quite normal this one was not taken into account.

Tethics is a core part of the Hooli experience

If I were taking an ethics class, I‘d be delighted to see an SBF guest lecture. In ethics, you can learn as much from negative examples as positive ones.

> In ethics, you can learn as much from negative examples as positive ones.

Can you learn as much from examples that are self-promoting (in the universe where the cause of cancellation did not occur) or responsibility-deflecting (in the universe whwre the cause occurred, but for some reason the lecture occurred anyway) lies, though?

If you were really concerned with ethics you would want to be directly exposed to this kind of thing and then discuss it. Especially if it wasn’t entirely clear what was wrong ethically and why. Like analyzing Hitler and Gandhi or whatever your extremes of choice are arent all that interesting or valuable in this context.

I think Standford may do these somewhat regularly. I enjoyed this lecture from Aaron Beam, who was involved in the HealthSouth fraud and served time for it. You might be interested as well.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R_K7bQpDJzg [1 hour]

However, Beam seems like someone who got caught up in a criminal enterprise and has the perspective to own what he did. SBF seems like a permanent grifter (but here's to hoping he has the capacity to grow and can turn that around), I don't think he has the constitution to give a useful lecture on ethics. I think SBF will take any opportunity to disclaim responsibility, and it would be just as vacillating and useless other appearances.

Also, Beam already served his time and was at liberty to speak freely. Even if SBF had something interesting to say, he couldn't.

"Don't Do What Donnie Don't Does!"

So...this event is cancelled?

Let's be honest - if it was still on, we'd all watch a livestream if it was available...

Queue the scene from Billy Madison: https://youtu.be/xKGeHuln08A

How to "intimidate witnesses, digitally," does not sounds like par for the course in higher learnings.

Come on Stanford Daily, you can do and have done better than this.

> Bankman-Fried’s breach of bail conditions may cause his [bail guarantors] to forfeit the collateral they put forward

That's not how it works. The bail is to ensure you show up -- and SBF showed up and was tossed in jail to await trial. The bond is terminated; he won't get out unless the court agrees on another one (very unlikely) or he is found not guilty of all charges (ditto).

> New court filings allege that Bankman and Fried were themselves improperly enriched, and exclusive Daily reporting shows that Bankman continues to serve in official capacities at the school.

It's hardly exclusive as these points (e.g. the houses) had been printed in the newspapers at the time of their sons' arrest. And as tenured faculty there is no reason beyond shame that they should not continue to work. Probably they need the income.

If only Stanford had a law school where the author of this piece could go ask about this before writing...

> That's not how it works. The bail is to ensure you show up -- and SBF showed up and was tossed in jail to await trial. The bond is terminated;

The judge determines if all, or part of, the bond is forfeited due to the violations. I was unable to find any indication of either way online from a quick search, so it's possible it hasn't been specified yet.

Yes, actually that is how it works. Breaking the conditions of your bond may lead to forfeiture. It is up to the judge to decide this.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com