71–80 of 280 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It looks like a thin line in one plane but 1AU in a different plane.
If you pull a string that has the length of 1au, would it take 8 minutes for the other side to react to the tug, or would it move as soon as you pull the string?
I've talked to over 100 hematologists. This business, didn't pass a basic litmus test of objective criticism from people who work in the space. There seems to be this bravado among founders who believe they're sticking it to all the people who say something's amiss. I think if there's an elephant in the room though, it probably should be assassinated with a huge body of transparent evidence.
That said, your "litmus test" is dangerous and should not be used. If you had talked to 100 cab drivers about Uber, how many would have said it's a viable idea?
Uber is actually WAY less viable than Theranos, because there are legal frameworks that made it literally illegal. Meanwhile Theranos is in a high-profit part of the medical industry, that is also (as you can see) regulated.
The issue is that Theranos is a scam. That's the only issue, not any of the stuff you mention.
Founder bravado exists because lots of parts of the world are stupid and wrong and done out of habit. Theranos isn't a scam due to bravado. It's a scam because it's not real.
If it "happened to be" real and not a scam, your comment could read exactly the same, except it would happen to be wrong instead of right. Your generalization about startups is entirely unjustified, and makes it that much harder for people who are not running scams to actually change the world.
Could I also venture a guess that you're not living in Silicon Valley? Your comment and others like it are the reason people don't change the world from the city you're living in, by creating a startup from scratch, but go and move to Silicon Valley to do it. If you have any examples of an Uber, an Airbnb, or a Tesla made in the city you're living in, go ahead and say it. These three companies have upended their respective markets (taxis, hotels, cars). You would have knifed them in their infancy, citing "founder bravado".
This literally impedes progress. People shouldn't have to move to Silicon Valley to be able to change the world.
None of this has ANYTHING to do with the fact that Theranos (and, to cite another example, that ultrasound charging company) are scams. They are scams ONLY because they're not real: not due to the opinions of the industries they're disrupting, and not because of bravado.
Don't conflate the two.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It looks like a thin line in one plane but 1AU in a different plane.
If you pull a string that has the length of 1au, would it take 8 minutes for the other side to react to the tug, or would it move as soon as you pull the string?
Based on some googling it seems it would take roughly 1.8 years.
I've talked to over 100 hematologists. This business, didn't pass a basic litmus test of objective criticism from people who work in the space. There seems to be this bravado among founders who believe they're sticking it to all the people who say something's amiss. I think if there's an elephant in the room though, it probably should be assassinated with a huge body of transparent evidence.
I think Tharanos is a scam and misreported its results and capabilities. That said, your "litmus test" is dangerous and should not be used. If you had talked to 100 cab drivers about Uber, how many would have said it's a viable idea? Uber is actually WAY less viable than Theranos, because there are legal frameworks that made it literally illegal. Meanwhile Theranos is in a high-profit part of the medical industry, th…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm beginning to wonder if at any point they will pack their bags, return what's left to investors and close up shop...or maybe they'll just keep going until it's completely dead? Hell maybe they pivot to be a traditional lab with traditional equipment?
As a general rule that will serve everyone well on hacker news throughout their lives: Don't ever expect someone who has gotten their hands on your money to voluntarily close up shop and give it back :p They'll take it to the casino and bet it all on black, or siphon it off somewhere else before that ever happens...because all your money gone and them giving it back to you is the same thing to the person who no longe…
Maybe you shouldn't expect it, but I have seen a start-up or two that failed and that did exactly that.
And start-ups that fail have a whole pile of clauses triggered in the various shareholder agreements that count towards a 'liquidation event'. That's what liq-prefs are for and the immediate consequence usually is that the latest investors stand the best chance of getting some or all of their money back.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
well the bar is "owning, operating, or directing" a lab. She can appeal and that would delay it.. but when this takes effect, it sounds like she's out.
But does "operating a lab" mean the same thing as being the CEO of Theranos?
Effectively this says 'Theranos as a company will not go anywhere until Holmes steps down, and after that the chances of it remaining in business are still extremely slim'.
The article says it isn't clear what the monetary penalty would be.. but the letter CMS sent to theranos in March (re the newark lab) proposes a 10000$/day penalty for noncompliance that would continue until the lab is brought into compliance. http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/cms20160412...
That's only 3.65M (or 2.4M if they only count business days) per year. Having no idea of the US system here, could they just continue in noncompliance mode? It wouldn't be the first time a valley business powers on and pays for noncompliance. I understand that Uber pays the fines it's drivers receive where it's service is illegal...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's the first point in the sidebar: Revocation of the laboratory’s CLIA certificate which, as dictated by the regulations, includes a prohibition on owners and operators of the lab from owning, operating or directing a lab for at least two years from the date of revocation But yes.. they really didn't care to expand on that at all... or explain how it would impact their business.
Yes, I missed that. But does this mean Holmes has to be fired to keep the Arizona lab open?
This does open the door to immediate shareholder lawsuits if she does not step down voluntarily.
I'm usually a huge fan of pg, but in his essay about founders, there was one section which I wasn't very comfortable with: http://www.paulgraham.com/founders.html Specifically, when he talks about naughtiness, he says: Morally, they care about getting the big questions right, but not about observing proprieties. That's why I'd use the word naughty rather than evil. They delight in breaking rules, but not rules that m…
http://www.ycombinator.com/ethics/
A relatively large number of YC companies had an ethics issue and (unfortunately) the 'naughty' bits have been used to explain these away. So YC evolved and put up a fairly clear-cut set of rules that they expect YC founders to live by.