This is literally just describing him, and none of it is generous. I'm not sure why you don't see that but okay. He sounds like a complete idiot according to every single thing you quoted. Is the Times supposed to say "SBF, a complete idiot, thought he would have trouble sleeping, but doesn't"
>"This is literally just describing him, and none of it is generous."
Yes this is literally "just describing him" which is what makes the article so glaringly bad. Exactly none of these trite details have anything to do with the article's title of "How Sam Bankman-Fried’s Crypto Empire Collapsed."
I would argue that the amount of attention spent on such trivial details about "him" instead of actually talking about the "How" of his spectacular failure is quite generous indeed.
It's also worth nothing that this piece is in the Technology section of the NYTimes by a journalist who according to his byline "writes about the crypto markets and financial technology." Yet so much of this article would not be out of place in a profile in the Style section.
The article quite literally allows Sam to hang himself, I think you are completely misreading it and are counting on NYT to editorialize (which I assume you will of course complain about if they did it to someone else).
It seems as though you might not understand what "literally" means. "To hang oneself" is a figurative expression. It is actually the polar opposite of "literally." Your comment about me "counting on the NYTimes to editorialize" is equally bizarre and makes me think you might not understand what that means either. At any rate your ad-hominem attack is uncalled for. I expect better journalism from the NYTimes as it is newspaper of record in the US. I also clearly articulated my reasons for believing why this article did not constitute good journalism in my previous comments.
