I'd further add to that, that in this case the criminal was only 21 years old. To be honest it is to be expected to mess up at some point with this much pressure at that age.

I think this is one of those "knowing what you don't know" problems.

Most 21 year old kids will not know enough about opsec to understand that they don't know shit about opsec. If you know a little bit you might think "if I just do X, Y, and Z I'll be safe". I suspect once you learn a bit more about the area you will quite quickly decide that it's not actually possible to get away with this kind of thing once the cops are onto you.

Proving the truth of the old adage again: it's luck not skill if you're getting out of an impossible situation - the skill is to never get into such a situation to begin with.

Applying that to this scenario: evading/postponing arrest after the cops started to look into you is luck, never giving them reason to look for/into you is what could be considered skill.

Or even more specific: it became luck as soon as it became clear that there was an admin. A lot of criminals that get caught want to be notorious however and build their "street creds".

Playing 33 bits against a nationstate is pretty dumb.

There’s millions of high iq poor people who would very much like to not be poor. Intelligence helps you to achieve financial success, but a bunch of other personality traits are also important.

Like 60% of my (inner city) gifted class, who never graduated high school.

You're absolutely right that there is a lot of survivorship bias here. But I think even when controlling for that, my hypothesis is still likely true.

I’m not sure it would still be true. Your hypothesis that smart people can still make good money without unnecessarily doing illegal things sounds logical, but people with high risk tolerance sometimes do things simply _because_ they’re high risk.

The book “The Mastermind” was about a guy who operated a nearly legal business that broke open the telemedicine industry, only to use the proceeds to fund wet works, piracy (not digital, like actually killing people and taking over vessels) and general shady stuff.

I think if you get a person who is motivated by money and power to a certain degree, they may actually prefer illegal business because there won’t be as much competition.

(From a comment I wrote below)

>Legitimite employment might not give them the needed liberty to do what they see fit.

That's true; that's why I tried to qualify it with "generally". There certainly are some very intelligent, skilled people who are capable of finding legitimate employment and instead choose to immerse themselves in the criminal underworld, for various personal reasons. In practice, though, I've found them to be pretty rare.

Even among the ones who do have a desire for ultimate liberty and who see themselves as above the law, most feel like the risks greatly outweigh the rewards. Some temporary liberty in exchange for likely many years of zero liberty in a prison cell isn't a great deal. Especially when it's so easy for them to get a comfortable, high-paying legitimate job. (Admittedly, this trade-off may differ in places outside the US, where good jobs may be scarce and criminal activity may pay very well and almost always go unpunished. Assuming one has no ethical compunction, at least. Or feels certain illegal actions are ethically justifiable, like how many hacktivists feel.)

I'll also add as a note that another potential explanation could be a criminal record. Someone may have all the necessary skills and experience, but may not be able to get one due to past criminal convictions.

>Criminal activity is more so a function of risk tolerance than intelligence.

Not if you have a world view that all risk is to be avoided and anyone who takes risk is a fool.

(and just to be clear, I think people with that world view are a major impediment to societal progress)

Intelligence is but one of many factors.

Read Crime and Punishment by Dostoevskji.