The defense really had no option. Several of Bankman-Fried's previous defense teams quit on him due to his behavior. Even in this trial, during a session with just the judge, the defense made an objection to a question, the judge sustained it, but Bankman-Fried answered anyways. His own defense team asked him where had he been this entire trial because the objection was sustained, you didn't have to answer that. Bankman-Fried retorted that he felt like he had to answer that one. Just think of how crazy you need to be to frustrate the only lawyer who would take Ghislaine Maxwell's case.
At the end of the day, the defense had an unwinnable case. Their defendent is an idiot, and all of his co-conspirators plead guilty to all charges.
> And I just don't understand how such a fatal flaw was ever built into the system in the first place, and how it still hasn't been fixed.
Because the two hardest problems in software are cache invalidation, naming things, off by one errors, and buffer overflows from a lack of array index enforcement.
It seems obviously against AWS incentives to offer working v6 - all their influencing tools ("well architected" criteria, certificates) strongly herd you towards building mazes of ambigously addressed 10.x RFC1918 networks, and not internet style architectures with end-to-end addressing.
In the world of their recommendations, even the concept of a "public ip address" is a red flag, and AWS even recommends (for an added cost of course) tooling to flag and "mitigate" them. These provide a strong lock-in effect when customers spend effort to build the complex infrastructure for them in the name of security, even though in reality they hurt security through unnecessary complexity, addressing ambiguity, etc.
Just watch the first lecture and you won't be able to not watch the rest. It starts with making your own autograd engine in 100 lines of python, similar to PyTorch and then builds up to a GPT network. He's one of the best in the field, founder of OpenAI, then Director of AI at Tesla. Nothing like the scam tutorials that just copy-paste random code from the internet.
> This pattern—massive outlays followed by poor, possibly-rushed possibly-underpowered workmanship—sounds remarkably like corruption.
I worked at a medium-sized company that went through a phase of hiring ex-FAANG people, thinking we'd improve our quality by implementing FAANG practices.
It did the opposite: The ex-FAANG people were absolutely masterful at self-promotion, office politics, and collecting wins for themselves while shifting blame for anything that didn't work.
The strange thing was that many of them were actually good programmers when it came down to it. It seemed like they had been conditioned by their FAANG employers to put self-promotion and survival above everything else, which turned into an extremely toxic trait once they were removed from FAANG managers who were playing the same game. The company had to steadily ratchet down the levels of trust and independence granted to teams, while steadily increasing the amount of management oversight and process to keep them within bounds.
Now whenever I see famous builders and founders leave FAANG companies out of frustration, I get it. The big tech company game has deviated very far from execution.
> It's the same thing as people say about fires. When you put out a fire you are a hero. When you prevent the fire in the first place, everybody thinks it's business as usual and nobody understands why you are needed.
I got a dose of very cold water about this thirty years ago when I was building payware that improved developer productivity. I gave a presentation about its ROI, and afterwards, a developer walked up to me and gave me some feedback that none of the business-types had articulated:
Products are either vitamins or painkillers. People buy painkillers, because they're in pain. People postpone vitamins, because nothing is wrong and the benefits are always "later."
I didn't 100% change what I chose to build over the years, but from that time to today, I have worked on always spinning what I sell as an antidote to a customer's pain point, rather than as an investment they make to pay off eventually.
p.s. I don't know where that dev got the "vitamin/painkiller" metaphor, but it's sticky!
The paper here seems to make absolutely zero distinction between deductive and inductive reasoning, which should be the entire point.
Math is an arbitrary framework, built from arbitrary axioms. It is deductive. Thus, all proofs are simply deduction. The knowledge here is positive knowledge, we can show things are true, false, or undecidable. There may be errors, but those are errors in execution.
Psychology is not built on a framework. It is inductive, we are trying to find axioms that map to the data we collect. Thus, all papers are trying to add/build it's arbitrary framework. The only knowledge here is negative knowledge, falsification, we know only what is a failed hypothesis. There will be errors, both in execution, and there will also be statistical errors in experimental results.
The entire point of the replication crisis is that we don't publish or pay attention to results that are boring, so the framework we build is built on skewed data. We don't reject previously popular papers that are now unfalsifiable (the idea that the now unfalsifiable Milgram experiment is still taught in every university psychology dept should be outrageous). The boring results need to be weight statistically against the interesting results, but aren't, etc. Nobody out there is arguing whether or not the axiom of choice is a true axiom? It sort of doesn't matter, it can't matter, because it's arbitrary by definition.
You can't have a replication crisis inside of a deductive framework without changing the framework. This doesn't happen too often, but we did see this during the shift from neutonian to einsteinian physics. The study of philosophy of science is fairly obscure, but is the center of this discussion.
At the end of the day, the defense had an unwinnable case. Their defendent is an idiot, and all of his co-conspirators plead guilty to all charges.