181–190 of 280 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wouldn't Theranos be the owner and operator of the lab?
Can't they work around this by renting the lab?
If they rent the lab out to someone else, they're still the owner.
If they rent the lab from some third party owner, they're the operator.
Either way they're violating the terms of the ban.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So all blood tests are useless?
Blood tests use a relatively large amount of blood to counter the problem. Also many blood tests are repeated multiple times before the doctor produces the final diagnosis. So multiple units of blood from a vein distributed over days vs a pinprick's worth of blood from a finger.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Evidence A: How Paul defended shady AirBnB tactics here on hackernews.
Evidence B: His defence of the Y Combinator-funded startup that was paying companies to bundle unwanted software into their installers and tricking users into installing it.
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130115/17343321692/why-a...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Elon Musk wasn't playing with people's lives. The FDA exists for a reason.
You sure? The two autopilot deaths say otherwise. There has and will always be risk in starting a company. Your products might have flaws and they might kill. Some companies make it through these events...some don't. Innovation is embracing a crazy idea to move humanity forward. However, it also means embracing all the unknowns.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isn't that because they could work outside many bureaucratic regulations and Musk's focus on the essential?
Regulations don't prevent you from inventing new things, only from inflicting them onto the whole of the society. But they didn't invent anything useful in the first place, so arguing that regulations were what stopped them is silly.
Disclaimer: I don't know much about how SpaceX or NASA's finances work. But I assumed that, due to their tighter coupling with a government, NASA has less leeway in their decisions of which technologies to research compared to SpaceX.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not sure if scam is the right word. Everyone is capable of deluding themselves into believing their current, morally questionable actions will be seen as justified in the future (when everything works, out of course). I'm sure even Bernie Madoff believed at some point he would win it all back and no one would ever know or be harmed.
I don't agree with your characterization of Bernie Madoff. He knew he was running a scam. He was clearly lying in his marketing materials, saying his fund performed certain trades that they never did. (See Harry Markopolos' book, "No One Would Listen"; that's how Markopolos figured out it was a scam.) I think Madoff is, at the least, a borderline sociopath. (If not an outright one.) A sociopath may think they can get…
Theranos marketing materials lied. Only difference is they changed the marketing materials after they got caught.
> never set out to scam anyone
How do you know? Maybe that's been part of her scam...to operate it under the guise of a venture funded startup. The difference between Madoff and Holmes is that Madoff's scam is purely financial, so it's easy to understand motive. It's slightly harder to understand for Holmes' case and the verdict is still out.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't agree with your characterization of Bernie Madoff. He knew he was running a scam. He was clearly lying in his marketing materials, saying his fund performed certain trades that they never did. (See Harry Markopolos' book, "No One Would Listen"; that's how Markopolos figured out it was a scam.) I think Madoff is, at the least, a borderline sociopath. (If not an outright one.) A sociopath may think they can get…
> He was clearly lying in his marketing materials, saying his fund performed certain trades that they never did. Theranos marketing materials lied. Only difference is they changed the marketing materials after they got caught. > never set out to scam anyone How do you know? Maybe that's been part of her scam...to operate it under the guise of a venture funded startup. The difference between Madoff and Holmes is that…
So, to answer your question, I don't know, which I clearly said. However, I think it is possible that Holmes was not intentionally running a scam, but allowed herself to be deluded by her own story. Again, to be clear, I do not know this is the case. I think it is possibly true. To me, this is different from Madoff, where we know he knowingly ran a scam.
I hope that Holmes' bizarre behavior as the issues went public keep her from ever running anything even remotely close to things that matter for people's lives and well being. Even as the questions were building and the noose was tightening, she would announce a public talk to reveal and openly share information on the company's tech, then mysteriously cancel a short while later -- she did this over and over. I'm sti…
Not sure if scam is the right word. Everyone is capable of deluding themselves into believing their current, morally questionable actions will be seen as justified in the future (when everything works, out of course). I'm sure even Bernie Madoff believed at some point he would win it all back and no one would ever know or be harmed.
This is dissonance, defined. Seeing one's actions as maybe being justified later is just rationalizing using other's feelings or thoughts. It's not cool to speak for others and if one is not careful, they can burn their entire life down around themselves.