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
    link
    English
    13
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    SBF: What if we kissed in the uncanny valley 😳😳😳

    - These docs in a nutshell

    • @swlabr
      link
      English
      81 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
          link
          English
          91 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
          61 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.