Crypto CEO Accidentally Describes Ponzi Scheme--UPDATE--Bankman-Fried arrested in the Bahamas on money laundering and fraud charges.

[badhat]

So I apologize if this was answered before and I didn't see it, but how much currency/real assets were FTX holding as assets?

 

[null]

let me rephrase so as to amplify and clarify what i meant.

"seems like you agree with her in part in at least northern casts vs southern casts.

we don't know what genes are responsible for what (intellectual) capabilities and we can't just wish that away by ignoring it."

TL;DR yeah we don't know ... maybe there is a connection. we can't rule it out. we are 40 -60 odd percent the same as bananas which suggests that many genes code for non-higher life-form capabilities. Isn't the fruit fly even closer to us?

No, I don't agree with her at all. In-group diversity is FAR larger than between-group differences,

given as gene An != gene Am for all-genes in A it has no provable relevance. it's not the size of the differences or commonalities across the board but rather a specific set of commonalities/differences.

population A and B (larger) cross union areas and differences could be for genes(combinations) that do not foster capability.

population A and B (smaller) internal distinct commonalities could be related to capability.

it's not the sum of differences/commonalities that matter. it is the specific genes for talent and how those are distributed that matters - ignore the rest.

further classification power exists if those are correlated with an (also small) subset of other internally common, cross less common characteristics.

-

at least this is in HL

-

illustration as to why "In-group diversity is FAR larger than between-group differences" proves little.

individuals A1, A2 in set A share gene set C which imbues enhanced capability in direction E

individuals A1, A2 are very different otherwise genetically speaking when it comes to gene set O which covers expressions for height, strength, heart function, vitamin tolerances etc.

individuals B1, B2 in set B share gene set D which imbues average capability in direction E

individuals B1, B2 are very different otherwise genetically speaking when it comes to gene set O which covers expressions for height, strength, heart function, vitamin tolerances etc.

sets (A1, B1), (A2, B2) are overall internally genetically closer even though cross-set than sets A and B are internally because of big differences in large gene set O (which have nothing to do with direction E).

set A and B members have higher internal than cross gene commonality wrt to ancestral/migratory genes which allows for the A.B grouping in the first place.

NOTE: this works because we are grouping based on frequency and correlation for two phenomenon. we are not seeking to show commonality cross the board of all gene expression.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

let me rephrase so as to amplify and clarify what i meant.

"seems like you agree with her in part in at least northern casts vs southern casts.

we don't know what genes are responsible for what (intellectual) capabilities and we can't just wish that away by ignoring it."

TL;DR yeah we don't know ... maybe there is a connection. we can't rule it out. we are 90-odd percent the same as bananas which suggests that a minority of genes code for the broad totality of our non-banana-ness.



given as gene An != gene Am for all-genes in A it has no provable relevance. it's not the size of the differences or commonalities across the board but rather a specific set of commonalities/differences.

population A and B (larger) cross union areas and differences could be for genes(combinations) that do not foster capability.

population A and B (smaller) internal distinct commonalities could be related to capability.

it's not the sum of differences/commonalities that matter. it is the specific genes for talent and how those are distributed that matters - ignore the rest.

further classification power exists if those are correlated with an (also small) subset of other internally common, cross less common characteristics.

-

at least this is in HL

-

illustration as to why "In-group diversity is FAR larger than between-group differences" proves little.

individuals A1, A2 in set A share gene set C which imbues enhanced capability in direction E

individuals A1, A2 are very different otherwise genetically speaking when it comes to gene set O which covers expressions for height, strength, heart function, vitamin tolerances etc.

individuals B1, B2 in set B share gene set D which imbues average capability in direction E

individuals B1, B2 are very different otherwise genetically speaking when it comes to gene set O which covers expressions for height, strength, heart function, vitamin tolerances etc.

sets (A1, B1), (A2, B2) are overall internally genetically closer even though cross-set than sets A and B are internally because of big differences in large gene set O (which have nothing to do with direction E).

set A and B members have higher internal than cross gene commonality wrt to ancestral/migratory genes which allows for the A.B grouping in the first place.

NOTE: this works because we are grouping based on frequency and correlation for two phenomenon. we are not seeking to show commonality cross the board of all gene expression.

But at that level of ambiguity you could suggest literally anything. Your argument is so vague it could be applied to two first cousins just as easily as two different castes.

The high degree of genetic overlap between Indian populations, very recent point of caste divergence in comparison to the evolution of brain development, and limited degree of natural selection for intellect in the last 5000 years (since smart people in societies don't tend to have more adult children than dumb people) makes your argument unlikely.

Do you have any evidence that any two closely related populations differ in a specific set of genes which imbues intellectual capability? Until you have at least some case of that existing, you're merely making an argument from ignorance which will be forever "possible".

 

[null]

But at that level of ambiguity you could suggest literally anything. Your argument is so vague it could be applied to two first cousins just as easily as two different castes.

because you are trying to read my argument as proof of something, more than it is proof of "no position".

Do you have any evidence that any two closely related populations differ in a specific set of genes which imbues intellectual capability?
Until you have at least some case of that existing, you're merely making an argument from ignorance which will be forever "possible".

i'm going to skip the old "we don't know so we must assume the opposite" argument.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

because you are trying to read my argument as proof of something, more than it is proof of "no position".

You claimed I agreed with her. I said that was explicitly false and explained why I don't agree with her. So I don't know why you're so adamant to prove your "no position".

i'm going to skip the old "we don't know so we must assume the opposite" argument.

Of course you should assume racist claims are bullshyt if no evidence for them has been presented.

It's a good general principle not to apply discriminatory stereotypes you have zero evidence for just because "we don't know".


There is a substantial logical and experiential basis for assuming that no meaningful intellectual differences would have developed in a mere 2000 years of population separation. No one has ever shown any examples of that happening in such a short time, ever, and especially not under those societal conditions. You wish to throw away a reasonable inference based on experience and understanding of the complexity of cognitive function with a mere "but you can't prove it didn't happen this time" argument, which is ridiculous because the genetic code is too complex to prove a negative.

 

[null]

You claimed I agreed with her. I said that was explicitly false and explained why I don't agree with her. So I don't know why you're so adamant to prove your "no position".





Of course you should assume racist claims are bullshyt if no evidence for them has been presented.

It's a good general principle not to apply discriminatory stereotypes you have zero evidence for just because "we don't know".

stripping out the babble you have no answer to my core point. dragging other elements in or countering assertions i did not make is just typical @Rhakim babble. trying to hide his loss behind a surfeit of adjuncts, strawmen and non-sequiturs. just accept the truth of what i said about commonalities vs. differences and keep it moving.

There is a substantial logical and experiential basis for assuming that no meaningful intellectual differences would have developed in a mere 2000 years of population separation. No one has ever shown any examples of that happening in such a short time, ever, and especially not under those societal conditions. You wish to throw away that inference based on experience and understanding of the complexity of cognitive function with a mere "but you can't prove it didn't happen this time" argument, which is ridiculous because the genetic code is too complex to prove a negative.

babble, invective and a "2000" year strawman. you want to assert something then go ahead but be detailed and precise. invective in response to imagined arguments is not worthy of a response. it's babble.

you do not have the formal logic nor statistical background to frame the point that i made. so you don't understand it. i had to spell it out sesame street fashion for you to even begin to understand that there is a rational counterpoint to your position.

given that and given that we do not know which genes select for "capability", assumptions about where "THEY"* came from ("2000 years limit") clearly requires another sesame street level breakdown and i don't have the time/patience for that.

* (" 'they' ... like the man nah learn nothing" )

 

[Professor Emeritus]

stripping out the babble you have no answer to my core point. dragging other elements in or countering assertions i did not make is just typical @Rhakim babble. trying to hide his loss behind a surfeit of adjuncts, strawmen and non-sequiturs. just accept the truth of what i said about commonalities vs. differences and keep it moving.


babble, invective and a "2000" year strawman. you want to assert something then go ahead but be detailed and precise. invective in response to imagined arguments is not worthy of a response. it's babble.

you do not have the formal logic nor statistical background to frame the point that i made. so you don't understand it. i had to spell it out sesame street fashion for you to even begin to understand that there is a rational counterpoint to your position.

given that and given that we do not know which genes select for "capability", assumptions about where "THEY"* came from ("2000 years limit") clearly requires another sesame street level breakdown and i don't have the time/patience for that.

* (" 'they' ... like the man nah learn nothing" )

The lack of self-awareness necessary to start with those four words and then say nothing for four paragraphs.

 

[null]

The lack of self-awareness necessary to start with those four words and then say nothing for four paragraphs.

and i ended with these words.

" just accept the truth of what i said about commonalities vs. differences and keep it moving."

 

[Professor Emeritus]

and i ended with these words.

" just accept the truth of what i said about commonalities vs. differences and keep it moving."

Wait, I just realized you gotta be @TENET. You did this same "long-winded missing the point while saying nothing" arguments in those quantum teleportation and covid vaccine threads too.

You haven't done any formal work in quantum physics, genetics, or virology, have you? I'd bet anything you're just a programmer or some related tech field, and based on 5% of the information you need in a topic you make these long-ass diversions for no reason just because you're a contrarian and lack perspective.

 

[Brehcepticon]

 

[Bboystyle]

An FTX exec bought $6 million of real estate and restaurants in a small Massachusetts town. The crypto giant's collapse has a local official worried about the town's future.

Local newspaper The Berkshire Eagle reported last year that Ryan Salame owns almost half the restaurants in Lenox, MA.

www.businessinsider.com

What a boss lmao

Dude was on some Ozark shyt

 

[Bboystyle]

Sheeeeeeeit

He is snitching on everyone. Crypto finna be over.

No its not

 

[ADevilYouKhow]

Low key one of the funniest things about the ftx collapse is that crypto bros see themselves as gods amongst mortals with jawlines made of limestone and fukking sbf and his goblin looking fukking bytch were the real sharks

 

[The_Unchosen_One]

When we putting up the suicide poll on this piece of shyt?

He's gonna kill himself, everyone ratting on him, his mother demanded the jail he was in give him a vegan diet... how you think this soft ass motherfukker would do in actual prison?

Coli Cash on dead by end of January

 

[Hood Critic]

So I apologize if this was answered before and I didn't see it, but how much currency/real assets were FTX holding as assets?

I think that might still be in question.