Rationalist check-list:

  1. Incorrect use of analogy? Check.
  2. Pseudoscientific nonsense used to make your point seem more profound? Check.
  3. Tortured use of probability estimates? Check.
  4. Over-long description of a point that could just have easily been made in 1 sentence? Check.

This email by SBF is basically one big malapropism.

  • swlabr@awful.systems
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    1 year ago

    The most charitable reading of this is that, removed from context, it is an attempt to bridge some kind of gap (i.e. an “uncanny valley”) between two companies, that gap being some amalgamation of communication issues, values differences, work styles, really just every aspect of a company’s identity. So it’s fucking hilarious that he has chosen to write this doc using the most esoteric, faux-philosophical, alienating drivel possible.

    WITH context, however, it is even more absurd. It’s still the above, with an extra undercoat of trying to resolve a love triangle between at least two rat-dorks. Truly a masterpiece.

      • swlabr@awful.systems
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        1 year ago

        Alts for SBF’s usage of “uncanny valley” he can have for free if he promises not to use “uncanny valley” incorrectly ever again:

        • amiss abyss
        • stench trench
        • uncomfortable gorge/fjord
        • communication fail vale
        • canyon of “can you meet me in the middle”

        It’s 100 BTC if he wants to keep misusing it though.

      • AllNewTypeFace@leminal.space
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        Especially since everybody knows that the real smart word is “whomst’ve”. Just using “whom” is like being an alpha-male in a turbo-enby world.