No one is arguing that SBF didn't run a scam because, as far as I can tell, most people on this site think SBF did run a scam (more specifically, stole his customers' money to prop up his other business). There's very little discussion of this here because the Less Wrong-adjacent EA Forum is more relevant, but the posts on that site are highly critical of SBF right now.
The problem with this post is a moderation issue: Less Wrong isn't the right place to post songs about how bad people are, even if they are actually bad.
Downvoting posts because you don't want to see more posts like them is how vote-based moderation works. It's not a fallacy to discourage behavior that you want to see less of.
No, I don't want Less Wrong to turn into the Onion or the Daily Show. I enjoy reading the Onion sometimes, but it would be a waste to turn Less Wrong into that.
Criticizing leaders is fine though (although SBF isn't one here, as far as I know).
I really don't think LessWrong is the place for personal attacks, whether or not the target has done something bad.
This is what me and my roommate do and it works great. Filling the detergent slot when you finish unloading the dishwasher takes almost no time, and it's a very obvious signal.
A lot of ICBM's are capable of launching >10 MT warheads, but my understanding is that the US and Russia don't actually use such large warheads because it's more useful to launch 6-10 much smaller warheads instead.
It had read something previously about how huge nuclear weapons aren't very useful so non-test weapons tend to be MT or less range.
Wikipedia says the highest yield weapon in the US arsenal is the B83 bomb at 1.2 MT.
Russia's nuclear arsenal is more confusing but sources seem to all agree that their biggest weapons in active use are in the 745 kT to 1.2 MT range. Some examples are the R-39 which apparently currently uses 750 kT warheads or the [Topol M] with a 1 MT warhead.
Why are you planning for an experimental 50 MT weapon when the biggest one in Russia's actual arsenal is 1 MT (and most are smaller)?
Does the construction cost take the costs of one to infinity years of legal delays into account? I'm pretty sure if people could build affordable housing with a 25% yearly return, they'd already be doing it.
The idea of getting the funding from locals to make the delays less likely might help, although it only takes a small number of loud people to delay construction.
I think movie theaters are only profitable because of food sales, although I assume this is a price discrimination thing where going to the theater and not buying food is still better for the theater than not going at all, it's just not good enough for them to survive (with their current business models) if everyone did that.