freyr

Timnit’s backpedaling regarding her email and her ultimatum was absurd. You seem completely unwilling to factor Timnit’s own behavior into the chain of events, so it doesn’t make sense to continue this. This elimination of personal responsibility when it’s inconvenient to the narrative has become endemic among the activist employees. To your credit, it seems like your heart is in the right place with wanting to help her and others.

None of that disputes what I said or excuses her behavior. The “resonant” email is public, we can’t pretend it was in any way professional or appropriate.

Vanishingly few people can get away with acting like that at work without getting fired. She thought she was an exception and she wasn’t.

I suspect it was Timnit’s behavior after the paper didn’t pass internal review that actually got her fired (issuing an ultimatum and threatening to resign unless the company met her demands; telling her coworkers to stop writing documents because their work didn’t matter; insinuations of racist/misogynistic treatment from leadership when she didn’t get her way).

Will my car still get broken into every few months? Will I still have to walk over needles and human waste on my walk home? Will toothpaste still be locked up? San Francisco has a long way to go before it’s an attractive place to live and work again

It’s odd they label the voices as “soprano” and “baritone,” because they don’t sound like it.

I suspect it’s to avoid labeling the speakers as “male” and “female.” What a joke.

Yes, he believed the covert cheating device was an industrial-strength vibrator powerful enough to visibly shake the chair she was sitting in. Because that wouldn’t arouse suspicion. Truly a brilliant theory by Doug.

You’re linking to the “report” by the accuser that consisted entirely of character attacks and borderline paranoid speculation. It contained none of the evidence he had promised.

Similarly, nothing we’ve said is any more than speculation. That’s fine, but that’s all this is.

This sums up the problem with the pro-cheating side – the argument boils down to:

“This person didn’t behave how I think I would behave in this situation, so she’s probably guilty.”

But many people get extremely defensive and indignant when caught cheating or lying. Do returning half the money when cornered by Adelstein is evidence of nothing, either way.

Yes, there were enough coincidences to at least make cheating a possibility, but without any credible evidence I don’t think the “100% guilty” people should be taken seriously.

If you’re bad enough to cheat like that, you’re not good enough to avoid a pattern of suspicious behavior.

This arguably makes cheating less likely. If someone in production knew both players’ hole cards, which was the theory, this would be a nonsensical place to cheat. It was still a coin flip to either lose everything or, best case scenario, win a hand with a remarkable call that was sure to draw scrutiny.

If they were that unbelievably reckless, this wouldn’t be the only hand they cheated in. Yet there weren’t other examples of notable calls or folds that indicated cheating.

The simplest explanation in my mind is that this rather inexperienced player made a very loose call and got lucky. I can’t rule out the possibility of cheating, but there’s not enough evidence to make it more than a conspiracy theory.

It’s common knowledge to keep your mouth shut at this point. You don’t need to have highly-regarded lawyers advising you to know this, but SBF had (at least) two: his parents, who were with him in the Bahamas.

Even if he was under a delusion that the rules wouldn’t apply to him, we can assume his parents would do everything in their power to reign him in if this was not some sort of strategy.

From what I understand of the interviews, he carefully avoided going into details, and instead used the opportunity to present himself as an “aw, shucks” borderline simpleton with a heart of gold who just got in over his head. He was going to be arrested either way, so how do you see this as not a carefully-planned attempt to improve his public image?