uh oh you mentioned the shady super pac for democrats his mom started. better ignore it and talk about how republicans are bad

She also wrote about "moving past blame" for things that go "terribly wrong".

From "Sam Bankman-Fried's mom once wrote an essay about fixing problems rather than assigning blame when 'something goes terribly wrong'" Nov 20, 2022 [0]

>> She has written pieces for the Boston Review, a quarterly political and literary magazine, arguing that attributing "personal blame" in times of crisis had "ruined criminal justice and economic policy," suggesting it was "time to move past blame."

>> "The fact that we have gotten so little in return for our blame mongering at least opens up the possibility that people would be receptive to a new approach," she wrote in 2013.

>> "The next time something goes terribly wrong, suppose that instead of immediately asking who is to blame, we were to ask: How can we fix this problem?"

Seems a bit of a convenient philosophy for a fraudster . . .

[0] https://www.businessinsider.com/sam-bankman-frieds-mom-wrote...

This is literally just blameless incident response/postmorteming as practiced by google (https://sre.google/sre-book/postmortem-culture/) and a bunch of other tech orgs as well as in industries like aviation and healthcare. Its a well established and supported method for approaching problem solving. Like yeah I can see why it seems a bit ironic in this context but shes not expressing anything nefarious here.

Exactly. If you take this approach to the FTX incident, you’ll see quickly that the RCA points to SBF being a fraudster.

It's also the idea in many safety engineering orgs around how to mechanistically prevent something from happening again even though someone still might try to do the same thing again. In other words, blaming people for mistakes or fraud won't fix the problem since people make mistakes and commit fraud so it will simply happen again. Organizations and governments need to block those mistakes and fraudulent actors from being able to have the impact again that they had previously and we're trying to avoid.

That doesn't mean the person at fault can't also be blamed and punished as a warning to others (i.e. one more mechanism to prevent recurrence).

The problem is what happens when you apply this philosophy to yourself.

It might help if you’re too hard on yourself.

But if you’re egotist (like many founders), it can be used to justify all sorts of wrongdoing.

“I’m getting away with it - that’s a problem with the system not me.”

SBF claims to be the Republicans third biggest donor so clearly the paid both sides: https://www.businessinsider.com/sam-bankman-fried-says-hes-t... According to dome other report (Economist?) it was slightly more on the R than D side in any case it was lots on both sides. Crypto lobbying intends to weaken or avoids regulatory oversight. The so called Crypto Four in Congress were two D and tho R.

He claims to have donated to both sides. His democratic donatations were quite public, his claimed republican donations hidden. The reason he gave for this behaviour was to appeal to the media who dislike republican donations.

The subtext is of course that he was perfectly willing to pay both sides.