Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

U.S. Bans Theranos CEO Elizabeth Holmes from Operating Labs for Two Years

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 280 posts

Re: U.S. Bans Theranos CEO Elizabeth Holmes from Operating Labs for Two Years

#101

Post by abpavel »

logicallee wrote: post #72
kumarski wrote: post #62

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…

>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

SV has advantages for startups, yes, but there is a world outside of your little pond, you know. Ola, Alibaba, Amazon, Tencent, Baidu. Even VW and Ford have excellent EV alternatives to Tesla. If change could only happen in SV, it would also be limited to SV.

Re: U.S. Bans Theranos CEO Elizabeth Holmes from Operating Labs for Two Years

#103

Post by [deleted] »

jsemrau wrote: post #68
nell wrote: post #53

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?

[deleted]

Re: U.S. Bans Theranos CEO Elizabeth Holmes from Operating Labs for Two Years

#104

Post by fennecfoxen »

ricardobeat wrote: post #81
valleyer wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It would take 1 au / speed of sound in string. The 8 minutes comes from the (much faster) speed of light. Based on some googling it seems it would take roughly 1.8 years.

What if the string is completely non-elastic?

What if the string isn't actually made of matter but is made up of some hypothetical substance that doesn't follow any laws of physics?

Same question.

Re: U.S. Bans Theranos CEO Elizabeth Holmes from Operating Labs for Two Years

#105

Post by ryporter »

kiba wrote: post #99
ryporter wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be fair, that is how innovation occurs. There are many examples of "ridiculous" ideas that ended being wildly successful. Where would Elon Musk be if he listened to all of the incumbents who said that his ideas would never work? Obviously, the putative innovators massively failed in this case, but I don't think that the outcome proves that their original idea was fatally flawed, or at least that it wasn't worth at…

Elon Musk is himself an expert who knew rocketry. He knew his shit. Even then, he almost failed.

No, he wasn't an expert when he started down this path.

http://www.businessinsider.com/how-elon-musk-learned-rocket-...

Re: U.S. Bans Theranos CEO Elizabeth Holmes from Operating Labs for Two Years

#106

Post by semi-extrinsic »

mdpopescu wrote: post #82
ricardobeat wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What if the string is completely non-elastic?

At those sizes there is no such thing as "completely non-elastic" (aka "rigid").

This. Diamond is one of the stiffest materials in existence. It has a sound speed of 12 000 m/s. Lightspeed is 300 000 000 m/s.

Re: U.S. Bans Theranos CEO Elizabeth Holmes from Operating Labs for Two Years

#107

Post by logicallee »

abpavel wrote: post #101
logicallee wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>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 SV has advantages for startups, yes, but there is a world outside of your little pond, you know. Ola, Alibaba, Amazon, Tencent, Baidu. Even VW and Ford have excellent EV alternatives to Tesla. If change could only happen in SV, it…

I was addressing specifically Kumarski, it was not a generic "you". I was talking about the attitude he discusses. If he has an Uber, Airbnb, Tesla, etc, example, from the city he's living in, he's welcome to share. These companies are all guilty of the "bravado" he calls out. (Which has nothing to do with Theranos.)

Re: U.S. Bans Theranos CEO Elizabeth Holmes from Operating Labs for Two Years

#108

Post by brbsix »

kumarski wrote: post #62

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.

There appear to be two different sorts of "disruption":

1) There's disruption that's seen as impractical or insanely difficult (e.g. Tesla, SpaceX). Or technically feasible but with significant social or legal obstables (e.g. AirBnB, Uber).

2) Then there's another category, disruption that defies laws of physics. Kickstarter is replete with examples. This includes things like pocket-size underwater rebreaters, self-filling water bottles, and solar-powered motorcycles.

I'm no expert in the subject matter but Theranos tech seems to be in the latter.

Re: U.S. Bans Theranos CEO Elizabeth Holmes from Operating Labs for Two Years

#109

Post by aabajian »

The trajectory of this company is just terrible. They surmounted the most difficult obstacle in healthcare - breaking into existing strongholds (e.g. Walgreens). At that point if there was any doubt that their technology worked they should've used existing tools to run their lab tests. Yes they would've lost money, but they could have used the time to build out their rapid technology or pivoted to a different business model. Getting a contract with Walgreens or any major vendor in the healthcare space is an incredible accomplishment, but such unethical behaviour will make it even harder for future startups to secure such partnerships.

Re: U.S. Bans Theranos CEO Elizabeth Holmes from Operating Labs for Two Years

#110

Post by Bakary »

Fricken wrote: post #38
fnbr wrote: post #9

I have no sympathy for her. It's incredibly irresponsible to do what she did- play marketing games with medical technology. Theranos' unethical behaviour has made it much more difficult for future innovation in the medical field, and has potentially cost lives. This sanction is appropriate. My fiancee works as a laboratory scientist in a hospital conducting patient sample testing, and her and her co-workers take thei…

Trying to imagine myself willfully misleading her investors and the public for as long as she did, and at that scale extends beyond my capacity for empathy. I suspect she's genuinely delusional. I don't know how else someone could do something like that.

There's a lot of precedent for it, whether historical or in out curgent world. Some people are just cynical and devoid of much empathy. If they happen to have charisma and a lot of cunning, it creates really dangerous individuals that can cause a lot of suffering. Once people like that understand that they can bend others to their will there's almost no stopping them.

In Theranos' case, I don't believe the founder was necessarily this type of person, and she was probably delusional, but I don't find it surprising that they would be capable of lying to people's faces over a large period of time.

Post reply on HN