Sam Bankman-Fried, who once ran one of the world’s biggest cryptocurrency exchanges, has been found guilty of fraud and money laundering at the end of a month-long trial in New York.
They presented evidence that Bankman-Fried’s crypto trading firm Alameda Research received deposits on behalf of FTX customers from the early days of the exchange, when traditional banks were unwilling to let it open an account.
Instead of safeguarding those funds, as Bankman-Fried repeatedly pledged to do in public, he spent the money to repay Alameda lenders, buy property and make investments and political donations.
Bankman-Fried made the risky move of taking the stand in his own defence, hoping to convince jurors that prosecutors had failed to prove he acted with criminal intent.
Bankman-Fried defended the money transfers between his firms as “permissible” and testified that he was largely unaware of the financial hole described by his deputies until a few weeks before the FTX collapse last year.
Panorama explores the breakneck rise and sensational fall of Sam Bankman-Fried, the maths genius who set out to transform the world of crypto but ended up being its biggest loser.
The original article contains 573 words, the summary contains 188 words. Saved 67%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
Sam Bankman-Fried, who once ran one of the world’s biggest cryptocurrency exchanges, has been found guilty of fraud and money laundering at the end of a month-long trial in New York.
They presented evidence that Bankman-Fried’s crypto trading firm Alameda Research received deposits on behalf of FTX customers from the early days of the exchange, when traditional banks were unwilling to let it open an account.
Instead of safeguarding those funds, as Bankman-Fried repeatedly pledged to do in public, he spent the money to repay Alameda lenders, buy property and make investments and political donations.
Bankman-Fried made the risky move of taking the stand in his own defence, hoping to convince jurors that prosecutors had failed to prove he acted with criminal intent.
Bankman-Fried defended the money transfers between his firms as “permissible” and testified that he was largely unaware of the financial hole described by his deputies until a few weeks before the FTX collapse last year.
Panorama explores the breakneck rise and sensational fall of Sam Bankman-Fried, the maths genius who set out to transform the world of crypto but ended up being its biggest loser.
The original article contains 573 words, the summary contains 188 words. Saved 67%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
🤖 I’m a bot that provides automatic summaries for articles:
Click here to see the summarySam Bankman-Fried, who once ran one of the world’s biggest cryptocurrency exchanges, has been found guilty of fraud and money laundering at the end of a month-long trial in New York. They presented evidence that Bankman-Fried’s crypto trading firm Alameda Research received deposits on behalf of FTX customers from the early days of the exchange, when traditional banks were unwilling to let it open an account. Instead of safeguarding those funds, as Bankman-Fried repeatedly pledged to do in public, he spent the money to repay Alameda lenders, buy property and make investments and political donations. Bankman-Fried made the risky move of taking the stand in his own defence, hoping to convince jurors that prosecutors had failed to prove he acted with criminal intent. Bankman-Fried defended the money transfers between his firms as “permissible” and testified that he was largely unaware of the financial hole described by his deputies until a few weeks before the FTX collapse last year. Panorama explores the breakneck rise and sensational fall of Sam Bankman-Fried, the maths genius who set out to transform the world of crypto but ended up being its biggest loser. — Saved 67% of original text.
Maybe they’ll finally realize why their predecessors imposed term limits on themselves. Public memory is always kinder to politicians that freely give away their power - even in cases where they used it with an iron fist while it was theirs.
“He was a great leader who has remained in our hearts,” says a man who has come to pay his respects to Li Keqiang, China’s popular former premier who died last week.
But Li’s passing has provided a window to acknowledge his vision for the country and his seemingly more open and moderate approach to politics - which many see as a sharp contrast to Xi’s hard-line style.
Two young women in their 20s can barely be heard over the shouts telling them to leave, as they try to explain the gratitude and love they wanted to express towards Li.
Like in Hefei, the regional capital, the home of Li’s ancestors in the village of Jiuzi is surrounded by thousands of flowers, bunched together in black plastic for the occasion.
Chickens and birds can be heard above the shuffle of feet and quiet words as people bow in front of the thatch-roofed, mud-walled house where Li spent time as a child.
Two women who’ve brought their small daughters to place flowers acknowledge this - one of them describes him as “considerate” towards the country’s poor and its millions of migrant labourers.
The original article contains 894 words, the summary contains 191 words. Saved 79%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
She said that eight cleaning crew members, two flight attendants, and the captain and co-captain watched as she tried to help her husband exit the plane.
At first I was going to say, “how as a human being do you stand there and watch this?” But i have to think that many of those people wanted to help but felt that they could not. Instead, I’ll ask: What kind of terrible, shithole, money grubbing, leach on society company must this be to have made all of those employees too scared to step forward?
Except the captain. That is your plane, you subhuman piece of shit. The company you work for may be the devil, but you let this happen while it was your responsibility to fix it. You watched it and did nothing.
Undoubtably, the airline doesn’t allow them to help because of “lawsuit”
And while I agree, they should have had the wheelchair there in the first place, I don’t see that as the core problem. While this incident wouldn’t have happened if the wheelchair were there, there will always be problems that need to be addressed in real time while running their business.
This incident shows how they respond to problems and it is terrifying. Sure, the company could make sure there are wheelchairs on every plane so that this particular incident never happens again. But the broader issue is that they appear to have actively disempowered their employees from solving problems or doing anything outside their specific list of duties. Problems will always happen and you can’t have a precise plan for every possible problem. That’s whey employees need the power to solve those problems. Otherwise you get evil shit happening like this.
Edit: and the solution was simple. If you don’t have the wheelchair you are required to have, you wait for a wheelchair (or give the passenger get the option to be physically assisted off). Yes, that is painful to the business. It means delays. But that is the obvious solution.
That’s actually a really good point about the staff and their freedom/confidence to solve problems on their own initiative. Hadn’t thought of that, but you’re spot on.
Also agree on delaying the plane, I meant to say that myself. Imagine rushing the guy off AND not helping him… unbelievable.
My wife is disabled and needs wheelchair assistance at airports. Stuff like this happens to her all the time. I was not shocked to see the poster above saying it happens 30% of the time to them. The problem is capitalism, bureaucracy and lack of accountability.
Wheelchair assistance is provided not by the airline, but by the airport, who hires some local company to do it.
These companies without exception are the lowest bidder, and their management is trying to scrape maximum profit by providing minimum service.
This means not enough staff, staff who don’t care because they are woefully underpaid, site supervisors who are incompetent and under trained and wheelchairs that are poorly maintained.
My wife often has to endure wheelchairs that are like that shopping cart I’m sure you’ve pushed that lists to the left / only three wheels touch the ground / makes a “clunk” sound every few steps… These pieces of junk can actually really hurt her and have contributed to at least one ER visit.
So she started speaking up for herself, complaining and asking for better wheelchairs. Well… The assistance staff (who never speak English as a first language and often just can’t even parse what she’s saying) have refused, ignored her, told her other chairs aren’t available when we’re literally looking at chairs just sitting there empty.
I have told the assistance staff to wait with her and our luggage, gone and gotten another chair myself and then switched her into it while they stand there looking like an annoyed goat, not lifting a finger.
This isn’t even counting the absurd number of times there is NO wheel chair assistance at the gate when we arrive, or there are four people who need it but only two chairs, or the gate agents call for a chair and it takes them 45 minutes to come. I have called airlines on her behalf when she’s traveling alone, because she’s stranded in some arrival gate with no assistance, after having to drag herself and her bags off the plane alone and the gate agents have left her there alone. We’ve had shockingly similar experiences in San Francisco, San Diego, Sacramento, Denver, Las Vegas and Albuquerque. It’s chronic, and a result of industry cutting corners and doing the bare minimum they can get away with.
Sort of, but good Samaritan laws generally would protect the person. They still could be fired for helping even if nothing goes wrong, because they’re not trained for that and immediately firing you might help a potential legal defense (and they don’t care at all about employees or morale because of the brutality of late stage capitalism). The company would be on the hook either way
A brave person would have helped anyways and took it online if they faced repercussions, a smart person would have whispered to the guy “I could lose my job if you tell anyone I told you this, but if you take a stand you’ll win. Obviously we need the plane, and it’s not like we can put you on the no fly list for this. I’m sorry, this isn’t right, but I need my job”
A person working for a healthy company would’ve apologized profusely for the wait and called around the airport until they found a chair… There’s a 0% chance this wasn’t an option, it would’ve made the airline look bad, but not publicly… Unless they’d already burned so many bridges they couldn’t ask the airport (or even other airlines, competition or no it’s not a hard sell if you’re cordial to the people you work around)
The BBC provided specific locations and dates to the IDF for each of the strikes highlighted in the article.
We asked if these locations had been struck by IDF forces and whether warnings had been given prior to these attacks.
In its response the IDF said it "cannot provide any further information regarding these specific locations".
It said that it had "called on civilians in Gaza to move south for their safety but will continue striking terrorist targets in all parts of Gaza".
If Palestinians COULD get rid themselves from Hamas, they definitely would. Israel helps the Palestinians to get rid of the Hamas cancer - this unfortunately is an brutal and awful process.
And Hamas was caring for jews worldwide by trying to exterminate the israeli cancer. You are right that they are both dying from too much caring for each other
The hamas that Israel supported to undermine the secular Fatah? And now them killing 200 civilians to kill one alledged Hamas leader is the cure? Fuck off.
gen·o·cide /ˈjenəˌsīd/ noun the deliberate killing of a large number of people from a particular nation or ethnic group with the aim of destroying that nation or group.
From what I understand, the actions of Hamas are clearly fell under this definition. Their goal is to kill all Jews. I don’t see how actions of IDF could be classified as genocide, since their declared goal is to kill the Hamas leaders, and not some nation or ethnic group.
I don’t really care what you want to call it, it’s mass murder. If they cared about keeping civilian casualties to a minimum, the death toll wouldn’t be this horrendous.
I agree with you on that. From the personal perspective it doesn’t matter how you call it. However most of the officials do care about the definitions, and when you write to your representative you might want to have it in mind.
It’s not only about textual definition, think of the moral side of this conflict and try to justify killing 50 innocents for one alleged military target and how many more civilians need to die?
Was the Hamas attack genocide? They definitely intended as such; and killed over a thousand people indiscriminately with the aim of causing as much damage as possible.
But you cannot look at Israel’s actions and say what they’re doing isn’t genocide. That “this is war” is no excuse for the sheer scale of war crimes being committed.
It’s as if Israel wants to create a giant new generation of terrorists. So they can test their new weapons on them. Maybe that’s the plan in this festival of cynicism
It seems disingenuous to analyze the locations without checking how many airstrikes were performed in the regions they highlighted to evacuate.
The highlighted regions are basically marked for destruction because there is a large amount of ordnance located in storage facilities, or the IDF has identified them as having many entrances to tunnel complexes. In many cases, every other house in those areas marked for evacuation has been demolished.
There have been 8000 some fatalities thus far, and it’s only thanks to telling people to evacuate that there haven’t been 80,000.
bbc.co.uk
Active