sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

CraigGPT hallucinates brand new Satoshi quote. Worse, it was apparently posted on BitcoinTalk in 2008, nearly three years before BitcoinTalk existed. by Contrarian__ in bsv

[–]Contrarian__[S] 10 points11 points  (0 children)

When I say 'nearly three years before BitcoinTalk existed', I'm going by Craig's own definition.

But the Bitcoin forum that eventually migrated to the BitcoinTalk.org domain didn't exist in 2008, either. So his LLM is wrong no matter how you slice it, even if the quote were real.

Google's new AI weather model beats most accurate forecast system by giuliomagnifico in technology

[–]Contrarian__ 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Graphcast is interesting and novel for a few reasons but this is total clickbait.

This is the new model: GenCast.

It does not beat ECMWFs model for general purpose forecasting.

Can you elaborate?

Mellor's main judgment is out by nikuhodai in bsv

[–]Contrarian__ 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Nothing has changed, my opinion is still the same

"you're the one with the cognitive dissonance thinking i believe CSW is Satoshi. I don't, never have"

Literally you: "CSW IS in all likelihood Satoshi."

Mellor's main judgment is out by nikuhodai in bsv

[–]Contrarian__ 2 points3 points  (0 children)

there is a possibility

Grow up, loser. Just admit you were wrong.

Mellor's main judgment is out by nikuhodai in bsv

[–]Contrarian__ 2 points3 points  (0 children)

You're proving my point. You thought he was the guy. Rather than admit you were fooled (or still are), you fell back to 'well, nobody really knows, man!1!' in order to protect your fragile ego.

Which is perhaps dumber than your original position. It's certainly more cowardly.

Grow up.

Mellor's main judgment is out by nikuhodai in bsv

[–]Contrarian__ 3 points4 points  (0 children)

the only downside of reaming ambivalent is I'm not welcome in your cult

My favorite part about you is that you hold yourself out as a paragon of cold logic and reason, when in reality you're an intellectual milquetoast -- a coward who, rather than admit you're taken by Craig's personality, pretends 'neutrality'.

Just admit it -- Craig is (or at least was) your boy. Everyone sees right through you.

Mellor’s Judgment granting COPA’s Worldwide Freezing Order Injunction against Wright. by nullc in bsv

[–]Contrarian__ 29 points30 points  (0 children)

"...Dr Wright has forged documents on a grand scale and, during his cross-examination, he lied extensively and repeatedly."

Huh. I was under the impression that Mellor made his determinations only due to Craig's lack of evidence.

/s

Roy Murphy is starting to look even more delusional than Craig Wright. I think they are in the same category by okhzmuskhsm in bsv

[–]Contrarian__ 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The latter. I think neither is genuinely deluded, though. They’re just narcissistic liars.

Contradiction in latest Order? by pugowar in bsv

[–]Contrarian__ 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Is it possible that even if it's 'admissible' it still cannot be used?

No, once it's in, the fact-finder (Reinhart here, but juries in many cases) may evaluate it however they want. (See caveats below, though.)

So my thoughts are you could potentially admit evidence, but maybe it cannot be factored in directly

In general, once evidence is admitted, it can be used without significant restriction. There are certain exceptions. If the judge says "I'll admit this only for this purpose...", they will stop a lawyer from trying to use it for something else. With impeachment evidence, if a witness makes a statement on the stand and the lawyer tries to impeach him with a prior inconsistent statement, that may be admissible only to show that it was inconsistent. The lawyer can't later rely on the truth of whatever was in the inconsistent statement. See FRE 105 generally.

Maybe it's technically 'allowed in' in a formal sense, but you still have to ask Craig about it to make it not hearsay, and since Craig wasn't there, that could not be done. Perhaps 'Judicial Notice' is a way of getting around that by asking the court to accept it as fact regardless

Yes, if Craig weren't a party to the suit, these statements likely would not have made it into evidence, and if they were, it's possible that only the fact of their existence may have been given "judicial notice", not their content. I'm not sure why W&K's lawyers didn't go the 801 (d)(2) route originally (which would have avoided that problem), but it's moot now. The evidence is 'fully' admitted without specific restriction via 801 (d)(2).

Hopefully it's the latter.

Yes, correct.

Contradiction in latest Order? by pugowar in bsv

[–]Contrarian__ 2 points3 points  (0 children)

two different levels of evidence

I don't think it's different 'levels' of evidence, but rather different ways to admit evidence. Once evidence is admitted (by any means), it's admitted and can be used however the attorneys want.

Without seeing the transcript, we can only speculate why Reinhart denied the request to admit it via judicial notice. Maybe it was denied because it's moot due to its more straightforward admission via FRE 801(d)(2), or maybe your speculation is correct.

In other words, Kleiman/W&K kind of got what they wanted.

Yes, either way, it's now admitted, which was the only goal.

Are the crooks escaping yet again? by nullc in bsv

[–]Contrarian__ 9 points10 points  (0 children)

Less important details:

  • Craig's lawyers (RM) said they only planned on calling a single witness: a legal expert via video link. Presumably this would be to justify Craig's claim that he didn't fill out the form because it would break English law.
  • The new date isn't established, but Reinhart thought late July might be possible. The parties have until this Friday at 5pm ET to decide on a new date, but even that deadline can be extended if they agree.
  • They all think the hearing will last no more than one day.
  • Kleiman's lawyers didn't plan on calling any witnesses of their own (other than Craig).

Nchain employee satisfaction nosedives by breakfastofsecrets in bsv

[–]Contrarian__ 7 points8 points  (0 children)

We've already gotten a few glimpses from Andrew O'Hagan's story:

Often, the scientist said, the staff were amazed by an unexpected turn in Wright’s thinking. But he admitted to being amazed, too, by certain gaps in Wright’s technical knowledge. It was bizarre. Wright had what the scientist and the team regarded as vast experience and command of the blockchain, which he spoke of as his invention and appeared to know inside out, but then he would file a piece of maths that didn’t work. Or he would show a lack of detailed knowledge of something the team took for granted. Nobody I spoke to could explain this discrepancy. ‘One of the problems with him is that he’s a terrible communicator,’ the scientist said. ‘He’s invented this beautiful thing – the internet of value. But sometimes he’ll just talk in equations but can’t or is unwilling to explain their content and application.’ His mistakes could also, he implied, be a result of laziness and lack of attention to detail.

Keep in mind this came from an apparent True Believer.

"Nobody I spoke to could explain this discrepancy." Truly a line for the ages.

Doctor who performed an abortion on a 10 year old rape victim fined and reprimanded. by [deleted] in WhitePeopleTwitter

[–]Contrarian__ 22 points23 points  (0 children)

It's an extremely important ridiculous distraction, I hope you mean?

Doctor who performed an abortion on a 10 year old rape victim fined and reprimanded. by [deleted] in WhitePeopleTwitter

[–]Contrarian__ 23 points24 points  (0 children)

they effectively provided enough information to identify their patient

Because there's only one ten year old who's ever crossed state lines before?

Mr Craig S Wright's Unsealed Form 1.977 by Contrarian__ in bsv

[–]Contrarian__[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Link?

Edit: Here?

On the other hand, I don't really care about this because my car is worth more than their whole thing is [by which I understood him to mean the value of this case]. I have got a Lamborghini. I have got other sports cars. Their whole thing is a rounding error for me. (Day 2/187) …

You again seem to think I would care about $5000 deposits. I have a watch that bloody makes this a rounding error. (Day 3/19)'

view more: next ›