What did you read this year?
Your Year in Books has been shared with your friends on 老虎机稳赢方法
Go to previous year
Shortest Book
148
pages
Longest Book
480
pages
Average book length in
2024
306
pages
Most Shelved
1,030,461
people
also shelved
Least Shelved
42
people
also shelved
Jonathan鈥檚
average rating for
2024
4.1
4.1
Highest Rated on 老虎机稳赢方法
4.23
average
Jonathan鈥檚 first review of the year
really liked it
Wonderful theoretical book that provides an explanatory combination of philosophy, particle physics, and history in explaining a science-view of how the world exists (not why the world exists). I enjoyed reading the particle physics 101 for dummies to learn about discoveries of the past 20 years about up quarks, down quarks, positrons, and the Higgs field鈥 just skimming the surface. 400+ pages that is an easy read spanning the history of knowledg
Wonderful theoretical book that provides an explanatory combination of philosophy, particle physics, and history in explaining a science-view of how the world exists (not why the world exists). I enjoyed reading the particle physics 101 for dummies to learn about discoveries of the past 20 years about up quarks, down quarks, positrons, and the Higgs field鈥 just skimming the surface. 400+ pages that is an easy read spanning the history of knowledge/science, particle physics and the origin of the universe (not what was there before), cognitive belief systems, faith, thermodynamics and free energy, quantum chemistry, DNA, and personal meaning. I can think of few books that do a better job of factually integrating spiritual, psychological, and scientific concepts at a surface level (many youtube videos have done a wonderful job of this).
Atoms made of protons and neutrons in the nucleus with electrons in orbit
- 4 forces
鈼 Strong Nuclear force: binds protons and neutrons to each other
鈼 Weak Nuclear force: lets subatomic particles interact with each other
鈼 Electromagnetism: Binds electrons. Fields comprised of photons
鈼 Gravitational Force: Binds mass to each other. Fields comprised of gravitons
- 2 Quantum Fields: Fermions and Bosons
鈼 Fermions are particles of matter, take up space and cannot be piled on top of each other
搂 Electrons, muons, tau (electric charge -1)
搂 Electron neutrino, muon neutrino, tau neutrino (neutral charge)
鈻 Called leptons because they do not interact with gluons
鈻 Bound by W and Z bosons with weak nuclear force
搂 Up quark, charm quark, top quark (charge +2/3)
搂 Down quark, strange quark, bottom quark (charge -1/3)
鈻 Quarks that interact with gluons comprise protons and neurons
鈻 Gluons bind quarks with strong nuclear force
鈼 Bosons: Force-carrying particles, can pile on top of each other to create force fields like electromagnetism and gravity
搂 Graviton (gravity, spacetime curvature)
搂 Photon (electromagnetism)
搂 Eight gluons (strong nuclear force)
搂 W and Z bosons (weak nuclear force, let fermions interact with neutrinos that have no charge)
搂 Higgs Boson (believed to carry the Higgs field that is massive but has very low force)
鈥淪o the Big Bang doesn鈥檛 actually mark the beginning of the universe; it marks the end of our theoretical understanding. We have a very good idea, on the basis of observational data, what happened soon after the Bang [鈥 but the Bang itself is a mystery. We shouldn鈥檛 think of it as 鈥榯he singularity at the beginning of time鈥; it鈥檚 a label for a moment in time that we currently don鈥檛 understand.鈥 [p59]
鈥淏ayes was an English Nonconformist Presbyterian minister, and Laplace was a French atheist mathematician, providing evidence that intellectual fascination crosses many boundaries.鈥 [p74]
鈥淲ithout meaning to, we鈥檝e discovered a much more accurate metaphor for how systems of belief actually work. Planets don鈥檛 sit on foundations; they hold themselves together in a self-reinforcing pattern. The same is true for beliefs: they aren鈥檛 (try as we may) founded on unimpeachable principles that can鈥檛 be questioned. Rather, whole systems of belief fit together with one another, in more or less comfortable ways, pulled in by a mutual epistemological force.鈥 [p116]
鈥淜nowing that cognitive biases exist, we can take that fact into account when doing our Bayesian inference. Do you want something to be true? That should count against it in your assignment of credences, not for it. Does new credible evidence seem incompatible with your worldview? We should give it extra consideration, not toss it aside.鈥 [p122]
鈥淭he New Testament (Hebrews 11:1) says, 鈥淣ow faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.鈥 For many, faith is simply a firm conviction in their religious beliefs.鈥 [p128]
鈥淟ife is nothing but an electron looking for a place to rest鈥 鈥 Albert Szent-Cyorgyi, Hungarian physiologist who won the Nobel Prize in 1937 for the discovery of Vitamin C. Fits the scientific view that the purpose of life is to minimize free energy. [p254]
鈥淓volutionary history is replete with 鈥渟pandrels鈥 as was famously emphasized by biologists Stephen Jay Gould and Richard Lewontin. These are traits that arise for one reason and then end up being used for something quite different. By-products of the evolutionary process, rather than aspects that are directly selected for. Gould and Lewontin imagine that many features of the human brain fall under this category.鈥 [p268]
鈥淭he way he treated me and the way I treated him, the way we took care of each other and our family, while he lived. That is so much more important than the idea I will see him someday. I don鈥檛 think I鈥檒l ever see Carl again. But I saw him. We saw each other. We found each other in the cosmos, and that was wonderful鈥 鈥 Ann Druyan, widow of Carl Sagan [p367]
Synchronic meaning 鈥 depends on your state of being at any one moment in time. Being happy because you are out in the sunshine. Diachronic meaning 鈥 depends on the journey you are on. You are happy because you are making progress towards a goal. [p405]
Chapter 49 - Listening to the world
1) Life Isn't Forever
2) Desire s Built Into Life
3) What Matters Is What Matters to People
4) We Can Always Do Better
5) It Pays to Listen
6) There Is No Natural Way To Be
7) It Takes All Kinds
8) The Universe is In Our Hands
9) We Can Do Better than Happiness
Reality Guides Us ...more
Atoms made of protons and neutrons in the nucleus with electrons in orbit
- 4 forces
鈼 Strong Nuclear force: binds protons and neutrons to each other
鈼 Weak Nuclear force: lets subatomic particles interact with each other
鈼 Electromagnetism: Binds electrons. Fields comprised of photons
鈼 Gravitational Force: Binds mass to each other. Fields comprised of gravitons
- 2 Quantum Fields: Fermions and Bosons
鈼 Fermions are particles of matter, take up space and cannot be piled on top of each other
搂 Electrons, muons, tau (electric charge -1)
搂 Electron neutrino, muon neutrino, tau neutrino (neutral charge)
鈻 Called leptons because they do not interact with gluons
鈻 Bound by W and Z bosons with weak nuclear force
搂 Up quark, charm quark, top quark (charge +2/3)
搂 Down quark, strange quark, bottom quark (charge -1/3)
鈻 Quarks that interact with gluons comprise protons and neurons
鈻 Gluons bind quarks with strong nuclear force
鈼 Bosons: Force-carrying particles, can pile on top of each other to create force fields like electromagnetism and gravity
搂 Graviton (gravity, spacetime curvature)
搂 Photon (electromagnetism)
搂 Eight gluons (strong nuclear force)
搂 W and Z bosons (weak nuclear force, let fermions interact with neutrinos that have no charge)
搂 Higgs Boson (believed to carry the Higgs field that is massive but has very low force)
鈥淪o the Big Bang doesn鈥檛 actually mark the beginning of the universe; it marks the end of our theoretical understanding. We have a very good idea, on the basis of observational data, what happened soon after the Bang [鈥 but the Bang itself is a mystery. We shouldn鈥檛 think of it as 鈥榯he singularity at the beginning of time鈥; it鈥檚 a label for a moment in time that we currently don鈥檛 understand.鈥 [p59]
鈥淏ayes was an English Nonconformist Presbyterian minister, and Laplace was a French atheist mathematician, providing evidence that intellectual fascination crosses many boundaries.鈥 [p74]
鈥淲ithout meaning to, we鈥檝e discovered a much more accurate metaphor for how systems of belief actually work. Planets don鈥檛 sit on foundations; they hold themselves together in a self-reinforcing pattern. The same is true for beliefs: they aren鈥檛 (try as we may) founded on unimpeachable principles that can鈥檛 be questioned. Rather, whole systems of belief fit together with one another, in more or less comfortable ways, pulled in by a mutual epistemological force.鈥 [p116]
鈥淜nowing that cognitive biases exist, we can take that fact into account when doing our Bayesian inference. Do you want something to be true? That should count against it in your assignment of credences, not for it. Does new credible evidence seem incompatible with your worldview? We should give it extra consideration, not toss it aside.鈥 [p122]
鈥淭he New Testament (Hebrews 11:1) says, 鈥淣ow faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.鈥 For many, faith is simply a firm conviction in their religious beliefs.鈥 [p128]
鈥淟ife is nothing but an electron looking for a place to rest鈥 鈥 Albert Szent-Cyorgyi, Hungarian physiologist who won the Nobel Prize in 1937 for the discovery of Vitamin C. Fits the scientific view that the purpose of life is to minimize free energy. [p254]
鈥淓volutionary history is replete with 鈥渟pandrels鈥 as was famously emphasized by biologists Stephen Jay Gould and Richard Lewontin. These are traits that arise for one reason and then end up being used for something quite different. By-products of the evolutionary process, rather than aspects that are directly selected for. Gould and Lewontin imagine that many features of the human brain fall under this category.鈥 [p268]
鈥淭he way he treated me and the way I treated him, the way we took care of each other and our family, while he lived. That is so much more important than the idea I will see him someday. I don鈥檛 think I鈥檒l ever see Carl again. But I saw him. We saw each other. We found each other in the cosmos, and that was wonderful鈥 鈥 Ann Druyan, widow of Carl Sagan [p367]
Synchronic meaning 鈥 depends on your state of being at any one moment in time. Being happy because you are out in the sunshine. Diachronic meaning 鈥 depends on the journey you are on. You are happy because you are making progress towards a goal. [p405]
Chapter 49 - Listening to the world
1) Life Isn't Forever
2) Desire s Built Into Life
3) What Matters Is What Matters to People
4) We Can Always Do Better
5) It Pays to Listen
6) There Is No Natural Way To Be
7) It Takes All Kinds
8) The Universe is In Our Hands
9) We Can Do Better than Happiness
Reality Guides Us ...more
闯翱狈础罢贬础狈鈥橲
2024
BOOKS
it was amazing
it was amazing
Jonathan鈥檚 last review of the year
liked it
The highlight of this book about SBF, a pure psychopath (which I mean in a non-derogatory manner) - unable to feel emotion, cares about nothing yet almost to the point of nihilism but still has this ambitious drive to perform, and operates purely on left-brain quantifiable logic like a Vulcan - was him describing an interaction where Elon Musk asked him to fund the Twitter purchase "He's a weird dude." "If he's primarily wanting money, there are
The highlight of this book about SBF, a pure psychopath (which I mean in a non-derogatory manner) - unable to feel emotion, cares about nothing yet almost to the point of nihilism but still has this ambitious drive to perform, and operates purely on left-brain quantifiable logic like a Vulcan - was him describing an interaction where Elon Musk asked him to fund the Twitter purchase "He's a weird dude." "If he's primarily wanting money, there are a lot of people he could get it from," said Sam. "He could syndicate it in a week. It's not the dollar amount. It's about who has been nice to him and who hasn't." [p157]
This is not one of Michael Lewis's best books, though I enjoyed it. As opposed to his other books, in this one there is no hero. Lewis does a good job to not directly pass judgement on SBF, which so many chastised him for when it became popular and even fun to ridicule SBF and FTX. Though Lewis's opinion is clear to me in this book and I can't fault him for failing to beat on SBF as there is more to learn from understanding who he is and how that got him to this downfall. I did not see any sympathy towards SBF in this book, in fact there was quite a bit of sympathy towards those who worked for him (Caroline Ellis included). Lewis does not believe it's as black and white as SBF being a crook, so much as SBF thinking he could outsmart the system (and he almost got away with it) - less blatant than Anna Delvey, though the law is not based on intention nor degree of intention. It's based on action and there's no question there what SBF did.
There are many themes ranging from SBF's lack of empathy / Vulcan-like nature, hubris, and most notably bias - from all sides whether SBF himself or those against him every human has the ability to see exactly that label which they have defined as nuance does not easily fit the priors of a low effort mental model. I'm reminded of the Hogwarts sorting hat - SBF seems to have decided very early in life exactly how he wished to see the world, and was intelligent to recognize his own biases that he could usefully ignore; just like John Ray also had set in his mind who SBF was and how his job after appointed to oversee FTX was to vilify and extract rather than create value. Like the recent radio lab episode about the Stockholm Syndrome, it's easier to decide a singular result that is an oversimplification of numerous possible causes lumped together (there are so many reasons why someone would stay with someone who abuses them including fear/survival, lack of confidence, familial obligation, and simply the ability as a human to both care for someone and resent them).
I was most surprised to learn that the Effective Altruism movement was so full of psychopaths (non-judgmental term, but similar to how I call SBF a psychopath) who are more obsessed with quantifying altruism as a competition to make more money that does good rather than actually doing good themselves. It's always hard to judge intent, but it appeared to me from this book that the EA stalwarts found a means to use altruism as a socially-commendable method to show their personal superiority instead of less socially approved metrics like financial wealth of social media followers. I loved Bill McAskill's "Doing Good Better" and it changed my thinking about altruism in how he positions a more intelligent method of quantifying altruism by QALY and incorporates systems thinking in breaking it down to 1st principles鈥 I certainly did not walk away from his book thinking that Effective Altruism is a Rockefeller-Vanderbilt robber-barron competition in which the die-hards who snidely label themselves as EA will burn a village to save it. I haven't followed McAskill since reading his book in 2015, and am surprised and saddened to hear the direction that the EA movement has taken.
The chapter about Manfred - why was he so important to SBF over 31 years? Was it because SBF actually had an emotional attachment to this stuffed animal? Or because he felt that there is value in having something that he does feel emotional attachment to and arbitrarily selected Manfred? The question that Michale Lewis elicits by naming this the chapter is kind of like the beautiful mystery of the William Randolph Hearst caricature's final word "Rosebud" - more provocative than the question itself.
Describing SBF's inability to commit combined with his non-confrontational nature and complete lack of emotional awareness (or perhaps complete lack of care for emotional awareness):
- "inside Sam's mind was a dial, with zero on one end and one hundred on the other. All he had done, when he said yes, was to assign some non-zero probability to the proposed use of his time. The dial would swing wildly as he calculated and recalculated the expected value of each commitment, right up until the moment he honored it or didn鈥檛" [p17]
- "There could be a kind of equilibrium in which everyone in the world could remain wrong and he could remain right, and neither side would even try to change the other's mind. 'There are times when we're just going to stare at each other,' said Sam." [p32]
- After being arrested, preparing his written testimony to the House Financial Services committee - "Before he'd hit Send, he'd landed in an argument with his mother about what he planned to say. The opening of his testimony included the sentence 'I fucked up.' You cannot say 'fuck' to a US congressional committee, argued Barbara." footnote - "The document fell into the hands of reporters who forwarded it on to the committee. Members of the committee saw Sam's document. They agreed with his mother." [p209]
SBF's disdain for anything subjective, emotional, non-quantifiable:
- The single liberal arts class he took at MIT was film history: "The very first question on the final exam set him off. What's the difference between art and entertainment? 'It's a bullshit distinction dreamed up by academics trying to justify the existence of their jobs,' wrote Sam, and handed the exam back." [p36]
- "It's sometimes easier for people to publicly be the villain, than to privately have thoughts that others would judge harshly were they to be public鈥 in other words; sometimes courage of thought is even harder than courage of action." [p227] - I don't understand this鈥 SBF does not come across in any part of the book as someone who cares about the perception of others or seeks validation from others. He is saying here that he did not have the courage to be himself to himself?
SBF's perspective on Effective Altruism as a metric for quantifying personal impact, in a purely quantitative manner with left brain logic as the sole criteria. SBF is like a Vulcan.
- "Sam saw some merits in a certain kind of libertarianism [鈥 he thought, Yeah of course no one likes to pay taxes, but that's not exactly a philosophy. 'They blurred the line between libertarianism as a philosophy and selfishness as a philosophy.' [鈥 'The notion that other people don't matter as much as I do felt like a stretch.'" [p39]
- "It was one thing to feel isolated; it was another to believe that one's place of isolation was the center of the universe [鈥 'It felt unambitious to not care about what happened to the rest of the world,' said Sam. 'It was shooting too low to only think about what was going to impact me.'" [p39]
- "He might not have felt connections to individual people, but that only made it easier for him to consider the interests of humanity as a whole. 'Not being super close to that many people made it more natural to care not about anyone in particular but about everyone,' he said. 'The default wiring I had was, "Yeah, there's not anyone who doesn't m atter. So I guess I should care the same amount about everyone."'" [p40]
- "which tells you something about the role of ordinary human feeling in the movement. It didn't matter. What mattered was the math. Effective altruism never got its emotional charge from the places that charged ordinary philanthropy. It was always fueled by a cool lust for the most logical way to lead a good life." [p171]
Disaster of FTX management
- "FTX had lost a lot of money to hackers. To avoid encouraging other hackers, they'd kept their losses quiet." [p207]
- Key question that John Ray (assigned to be caretaker CEO) was trying to answer - "At what point was there less money in all of Sam's World (Alameda Research + all other entities) than was supposed to be inside of FTX? Exactly when did FTX go broke?" [p219]
Media and lawyers join the mob frenzy against SBF
- Michael Lewis is not kind to John Ray nor Sullivan & Cromwell, the firm that led bankruptcy proceedings. He points out the conflict of interest in Sullivan & Cromwell being selected as legal counsel, who then appointed John Ray as CEO, so that Ray could then hire Sullivan & Cromwell back for bankruptcy counsel (and they have billed $200M in legal fees)
- Lewis points out that John Ray seemed less interested in trying to answer questions about asset disposition within FTX than he was in seeking out associates that he could incriminate. Lewis also points out the potential mismanagement of John Ray in lumping all assets of "Sam's World" together to be liquidated and paid out whereas there was a valuable business and value-providing service in FTX itself if separated from the fraudulent trading entity of Alameda.
...more
This is not one of Michael Lewis's best books, though I enjoyed it. As opposed to his other books, in this one there is no hero. Lewis does a good job to not directly pass judgement on SBF, which so many chastised him for when it became popular and even fun to ridicule SBF and FTX. Though Lewis's opinion is clear to me in this book and I can't fault him for failing to beat on SBF as there is more to learn from understanding who he is and how that got him to this downfall. I did not see any sympathy towards SBF in this book, in fact there was quite a bit of sympathy towards those who worked for him (Caroline Ellis included). Lewis does not believe it's as black and white as SBF being a crook, so much as SBF thinking he could outsmart the system (and he almost got away with it) - less blatant than Anna Delvey, though the law is not based on intention nor degree of intention. It's based on action and there's no question there what SBF did.
There are many themes ranging from SBF's lack of empathy / Vulcan-like nature, hubris, and most notably bias - from all sides whether SBF himself or those against him every human has the ability to see exactly that label which they have defined as nuance does not easily fit the priors of a low effort mental model. I'm reminded of the Hogwarts sorting hat - SBF seems to have decided very early in life exactly how he wished to see the world, and was intelligent to recognize his own biases that he could usefully ignore; just like John Ray also had set in his mind who SBF was and how his job after appointed to oversee FTX was to vilify and extract rather than create value. Like the recent radio lab episode about the Stockholm Syndrome, it's easier to decide a singular result that is an oversimplification of numerous possible causes lumped together (there are so many reasons why someone would stay with someone who abuses them including fear/survival, lack of confidence, familial obligation, and simply the ability as a human to both care for someone and resent them).
I was most surprised to learn that the Effective Altruism movement was so full of psychopaths (non-judgmental term, but similar to how I call SBF a psychopath) who are more obsessed with quantifying altruism as a competition to make more money that does good rather than actually doing good themselves. It's always hard to judge intent, but it appeared to me from this book that the EA stalwarts found a means to use altruism as a socially-commendable method to show their personal superiority instead of less socially approved metrics like financial wealth of social media followers. I loved Bill McAskill's "Doing Good Better" and it changed my thinking about altruism in how he positions a more intelligent method of quantifying altruism by QALY and incorporates systems thinking in breaking it down to 1st principles鈥 I certainly did not walk away from his book thinking that Effective Altruism is a Rockefeller-Vanderbilt robber-barron competition in which the die-hards who snidely label themselves as EA will burn a village to save it. I haven't followed McAskill since reading his book in 2015, and am surprised and saddened to hear the direction that the EA movement has taken.
The chapter about Manfred - why was he so important to SBF over 31 years? Was it because SBF actually had an emotional attachment to this stuffed animal? Or because he felt that there is value in having something that he does feel emotional attachment to and arbitrarily selected Manfred? The question that Michale Lewis elicits by naming this the chapter is kind of like the beautiful mystery of the William Randolph Hearst caricature's final word "Rosebud" - more provocative than the question itself.
Describing SBF's inability to commit combined with his non-confrontational nature and complete lack of emotional awareness (or perhaps complete lack of care for emotional awareness):
- "inside Sam's mind was a dial, with zero on one end and one hundred on the other. All he had done, when he said yes, was to assign some non-zero probability to the proposed use of his time. The dial would swing wildly as he calculated and recalculated the expected value of each commitment, right up until the moment he honored it or didn鈥檛" [p17]
- "There could be a kind of equilibrium in which everyone in the world could remain wrong and he could remain right, and neither side would even try to change the other's mind. 'There are times when we're just going to stare at each other,' said Sam." [p32]
- After being arrested, preparing his written testimony to the House Financial Services committee - "Before he'd hit Send, he'd landed in an argument with his mother about what he planned to say. The opening of his testimony included the sentence 'I fucked up.' You cannot say 'fuck' to a US congressional committee, argued Barbara." footnote - "The document fell into the hands of reporters who forwarded it on to the committee. Members of the committee saw Sam's document. They agreed with his mother." [p209]
SBF's disdain for anything subjective, emotional, non-quantifiable:
- The single liberal arts class he took at MIT was film history: "The very first question on the final exam set him off. What's the difference between art and entertainment? 'It's a bullshit distinction dreamed up by academics trying to justify the existence of their jobs,' wrote Sam, and handed the exam back." [p36]
- "It's sometimes easier for people to publicly be the villain, than to privately have thoughts that others would judge harshly were they to be public鈥 in other words; sometimes courage of thought is even harder than courage of action." [p227] - I don't understand this鈥 SBF does not come across in any part of the book as someone who cares about the perception of others or seeks validation from others. He is saying here that he did not have the courage to be himself to himself?
SBF's perspective on Effective Altruism as a metric for quantifying personal impact, in a purely quantitative manner with left brain logic as the sole criteria. SBF is like a Vulcan.
- "Sam saw some merits in a certain kind of libertarianism [鈥 he thought, Yeah of course no one likes to pay taxes, but that's not exactly a philosophy. 'They blurred the line between libertarianism as a philosophy and selfishness as a philosophy.' [鈥 'The notion that other people don't matter as much as I do felt like a stretch.'" [p39]
- "It was one thing to feel isolated; it was another to believe that one's place of isolation was the center of the universe [鈥 'It felt unambitious to not care about what happened to the rest of the world,' said Sam. 'It was shooting too low to only think about what was going to impact me.'" [p39]
- "He might not have felt connections to individual people, but that only made it easier for him to consider the interests of humanity as a whole. 'Not being super close to that many people made it more natural to care not about anyone in particular but about everyone,' he said. 'The default wiring I had was, "Yeah, there's not anyone who doesn't m atter. So I guess I should care the same amount about everyone."'" [p40]
- "which tells you something about the role of ordinary human feeling in the movement. It didn't matter. What mattered was the math. Effective altruism never got its emotional charge from the places that charged ordinary philanthropy. It was always fueled by a cool lust for the most logical way to lead a good life." [p171]
Disaster of FTX management
- "FTX had lost a lot of money to hackers. To avoid encouraging other hackers, they'd kept their losses quiet." [p207]
- Key question that John Ray (assigned to be caretaker CEO) was trying to answer - "At what point was there less money in all of Sam's World (Alameda Research + all other entities) than was supposed to be inside of FTX? Exactly when did FTX go broke?" [p219]
Media and lawyers join the mob frenzy against SBF
- Michael Lewis is not kind to John Ray nor Sullivan & Cromwell, the firm that led bankruptcy proceedings. He points out the conflict of interest in Sullivan & Cromwell being selected as legal counsel, who then appointed John Ray as CEO, so that Ray could then hire Sullivan & Cromwell back for bankruptcy counsel (and they have billed $200M in legal fees)
- Lewis points out that John Ray seemed less interested in trying to answer questions about asset disposition within FTX than he was in seeking out associates that he could incriminate. Lewis also points out the potential mismanagement of John Ray in lumping all assets of "Sam's World" together to be liquidated and paid out whereas there was a valuable business and value-providing service in FTX itself if separated from the fraudulent trading entity of Alameda.
...more
What did you read this year?
