Regardless of whether or not corruption is the case, it only has forward guarantees if there is a hint of blackmail involved.

Donating a bunch of money to a group gives you no power over that group unless they think there is more on the table. When you’re about to get arrested they will cut all ties immediately unless there is an actual obligation to support you.

90% of them will never willingly admit they were wrong.

To be fair, 90% of all people won't admit they were wrong.

Sidenote, I think HN will be wrong on Elon Musk and X as well over the long term (personal opinion of course). But the way the discourse around X has changed on HN is incredible.

When Parag Agarwal was made CEO, everyone on HN complained about the platform and how a subscription model was the way to go. Now that Elon Musk has instated a subscription model, (seemingly) all on HN agrees he's running the company into the ground.

Seems to be happening a lot more often over the past 4 or 5 years.

Wondering out loud without having looked myself:

Is it perhaps two different subsets of people, with differing opinions that haven’t so much shifted, as that primarily just one’s been highly motivated to engage at a time? (In the same way that say surveys might draw disproportionately more engagement from those that feel extremely dissatisfied)

Or is it a wholesale shift in tone?

I mean, he did a couple other things besides try to launch a subscription model.

I don’t remember a single person even claiming that. HN delusion is real.

I've definitely seen several people claim it on HN. Almost invariably, such comments were downvoted into oblivion though, or had replies basically saying something along the lines of "what crack are you smoking?"

Some specific links to comments:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33909026

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33908850

So our friend saeranv is actually just parroting the consensus.

There is literally a top-level reply on this very submission still saying:

> I will still be surprised if he spends a single day in prison though.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38122135

and several similar comments scattered throughout, that Dems will pardon him. So yes, delusion on HN is quite real. And crypto news attracts a deeply paranoid, cynical sort of mind, who have seen a glimpse of some big conspiracy and can't let go of it.

I believe there is quite a few in the comments section here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33908577

I agree on this

I have seen a some posters on HN and a lot of posters else where trying to use this case to bash the Democratic party. It very annoying because they never provide evidence to back up their claims.

You also see a lot of people bashing Sam Bankman-Fried’s parents or accusing them of committing crimes without providing any evidence.

Eh, he must be pretty much broke now so why would politicians from either party care about him anymore? He made his donations and they looked the other way on regulating crypto.

They're like 300 conspiracies beyond that at this point.

He donated to both sides through another FTX exec. What is your real message? (I’m a leftist, not a liberal apologist).

The goalposts will change to his imminent pardon.

His campaign finance trial is March 11, sentencing March 28. I think it’s reasonable to speculate on whether he’ll plead guilty in exchange for clemency at sentencing. Who knows. I don’t think anybody reasonable has ever believed a pardon is on the table for the largest fraud ever.

I don't care either way, but I would guess most people expect that the sentencing to be very light if you have friends in important places.. not that you're just totally let off on all charges.

Thank you for bringing this up. I cannot believe how many people tried to use this case as a tool to smear a political party.

If you like HN commentators being wrong, you’ll love this initial thread on Alameda being insolvent [0]. I post only in jest, as hindsight makes much of this hilarious.

[0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33464494