[Etheryte]

You can pick any topic, any industry or any company and you'll find someone on the internet calling the doomsday clock on it. Identifying who was right after the fact is not useful, just like how saying the lottery numbers after they've already been broadcast is not useful.

[smcl]

That's true to some extent - I could spin up a few hundred accounts predicting something specific happen on a specific date for the next couple of years (a Russian surrender, Boris Johnson sex scandal, whatever) and claim that I'm Nostradamus when one of them hits gold. But it seems like this account accurately predicted not only that it would happen but also predicted the manner that it would happen, and explained in detail why it would happen. That feels a bit more substantial.

[jeromegv]

> Identifying who was right after the fact is not useful

Why not? It shows who was actually looking at the numbers and who was not buying on the popular narrative. This is a public company, now looking back, there are a lot of warning signs. Turns out that even a lot of professionals DID know and told us about those warning signs.

Nothing to do with being lucky and no comparison whatsoever with the lottery numbers, they based their assessment on public information available to all of us, not randomly guessing that one day SVB might fail.

[sonotathrowaway]

This makes no sense at all.

You’re saying that we should ignore detailed analysis that correctly diagnoses issues - for no reason at all?

[adventured]

They're claiming quite broadly that reality is unknowable, ultimately. That's where you end up if you follow their premise. Nobody can know anything with certainty, in other words.

[bigtex88]

If they had evidence for it at the time then why wouldn't it be useful to identify them after the fact?

I see the point you're trying to make. Conspiracy theorists should be treated as broken clocks. If people have evidence but are simply being ignored then I think it's wise to listen to those people.