Hacker News Reader

Comment by glitchc | Hacker News Reader

As per the article, he formed a trading company without any background in investing, and once his investments tanked, he sold the stocks for pennies on the dollar to a financial firm, leaving investors holding the bag while pocketing trading fees associated with a $45B USD portfolio.

View on HN

How is effective altruism related? I skimmed their wiki page [1], but didn't find anything endorsing such actions.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effective_altruism

No, but to most people the only exposure they've had to the term "Effective Altruism" (if they've even heard of the it) is morality-washing personal greed that never quite seems to get past the "accumulation" or "self-serving boondoggle" stages.

As a brand it's tainted. You might argue unfairly, but that's never mattered in "public brand perception" before.

Sam Bankman-Fried is an effective altruist (or was anyways, not sure what he is after they denounced him). The list of effective altruists reads like a who's who of scummy people.

https://www.wired.com/story/deaths-of-effective-altruism/

> https://www.wired.com/story/deaths-of-effective-altruism/

This is a joke of an article. It shows a few incidental deaths while ignoring the total number of saved lives due to EA. It literally points to ~2 incidental deaths while Give Well saves ~300k lives. Its remarkably ignorant.

Is there a word for this kind of fallacy? Cherry picking sounds too Reddit-coded.

bad ethics is when you run a company in free market transparently and don't have a monotonically increasing revenue?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com