Lumosity fined $2M for deceptive ads of “Brain Training” app

Post by w1ntermute » Wed, Jan 06, 2016, 5:48 AM UTC

StewsNews wrote: post #197

w1ntermute wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As I stated in the sibling comment, Stemcentrx is indeed much more reasonable than either Theranos or Nootrobox. However, a $5B valuation is still absurdly optimistic when you consider the comps. There have been massive setbacks at Verastem even after getting to phase 2[0], and Verastem's science originated from a top MIT research lab. 0: https://www.bostonglobe.com/business/2015/09/28/verastem-sha...

Agreed, that is a lot if true, the MIT article[0] gave a 3 billion number and also mentions that the latest valuation was determined by Fidelity not some silicon valley VC firm. This all leads me to stick with the assertion that I would not lump the three in any way. 0: http://www.technologyreview.com/news/541006/peter-thiel-back...

Post by jamesad » Wed, Jan 06, 2016, 6:28 AM UTC

w1ntermute wrote: post #201

StewsNews wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed, that is a lot if true, the MIT article[0] gave a 3 billion number and also mentions that the latest valuation was determined by Fidelity not some silicon valley VC firm. This all leads me to stick with the assertion that I would not lump the three in any way. 0: http://www.technologyreview.com/news/541006/peter-thiel-back...

The latest valuation is $5B, according to the WSJ[0]. The latest (series G) round was led by Fidelity, but Founders Fund, ARTIS Ventures, and SV Bank also participated in it[1]. Also, there's actually talk of Fidelity bringing sanity to startup valuations[2,3], rather than pumping them up even higher. You're right that Stemcentrx, unlike Theranos or Nootrobox, doesn't smell of SV hucksterism. However, rather than com…

Post by bsder » Wed, Jan 06, 2016, 7:02 AM UTC

thaumasiotes wrote: post #162

arbitrage wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The FTC is doing it's job. You can' make arbitrary medical claims, and not expect to have to prove them. This is the same sort of thing that a lot of people criticized the FDA over for going after Cheerios for making claims about being healthy for your heart. http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB124216077825612187 It's a good thing that there are parts of the government out there making sure you can't just make up whatever…

> You can' make arbitrary medical claims, and not expect to have to prove them. Sure you can. You just have to be selling drugs, rather than video games. I don't quite follow the logic.

Post by pocketstar » Wed, Jan 06, 2016, 7:58 AM UTC

ryanferg wrote: post #25

All of these brain training products are suspect. Evidence for far transfer (training in one task transferring to a different domain task) is surprisingly hard to find, and empirical findings otherwise tend to disappear or diminish when replicated. Many of the pro-brain-training camp have already begun to shift the goal posts. First it was 'simple games increase IQ,' which turned out to be difficult to prove when wel…

Post by spooningtamarin » Wed, Jan 06, 2016, 8:46 AM UTC

function_seven wrote: post #208

pocketstar wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

4-day smartphone* battery, I can remember when I only charged my mobile telephone once a week.

I'm sure that same mobile telephone was capable of far less than a smartphone. I remember my Nokias being able to last for days on end (unless I played a lot of Snake!) While I wouldn't trade my current smartphone for one of those, I do miss the lack of battery anxiety, and wish the manufacturers would make models for those of us who aren't obsessed with thinness. An iPhone 6 at 5/8" (15mm) would be awesome.