• db0@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    7 months ago

    The most infurating thing to me about this whole thing that such a transparent fraud like Wright is still going through the courts and hasn’t been laughed out and forced to pay extraordinary amounts.

        • db0@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          edit-2
          7 months ago

          Nah, we don’t get affected whatsoever. But it’s good to see scumbag billionaires setting buckets of money on fire like that. Classic “let them fight” scene. Sad thing that even the life-changing money involved here (for me), is not even pocket change for a billionaire :-/

        • David Gerard@awful.systemsOPM
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          7 months ago

          I have low regard for these people, but putting Prof Dr Dr Wright back in his box would be the most useful thing Dorsey has ever done with his money.

  • self@awful.systems
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    7 months ago

    DCG objects to the sale — that is, to the actions of its own subsidiary! DCG argued to Judge Sean Lane that the “sheer quantity of the Trust Assets at issue will pose a serious risk of value destruction.” LOL.

    I realize this is all a clown show, but how is it possible for a subsidiary to defy their parent company like this? I figured in cases like this, the people calling the shots at the subsidiary generally get fired and replaced with folks willing to play ball

    • David Gerard@awful.systemsOPM
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      7 months ago

      ch 11 bankruptcy is special. even if the same team is still running things, they’re highly restricted in what they can do. also, equity holders are generally presumed to go to 0 and can go whistle.

  • @spez@r.gir.st@r.gir.st
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    7 months ago

    nothing beats wright’s ‘explanation’ of unsigned int:

    Gunning asks if Wright knows what “unsigned” means in the variable declaration, and presses him to explain. Wright says yes, basically it’s an integer with… it’s larger… I’m not sure how to say it. I’m not sure how to describe it. I know what it is. Gunning pulls up a C++ book to show that “unsigned” simply means it cannot be negative. Wright’s says yes he knows that, he just didn’t think of how to say it in such a simple way.