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…
> Where would Elon Musk be if he listened to all of the incumbents who said that his ideas would never work? There were no scientific and few engineering objections to most of Musk's projects, mostly social/business objections that the time window was uncertain, the risks were high, and it would be difficult to build a viable business to bridge the gap it would take to get to the objectives. There's a difference betw…
U.S. Bans Theranos CEO Elizabeth Holmes from Operating Labs for Two Years
231–240 of 280 posts
Re: U.S. Bans Theranos CEO Elizabeth Holmes from Operating Labs for Two Years
#232Earlier 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…
Why do you think you have such powerful psychiatric skills that you can third-hand diagnose a man?
Is using the sociopath label premature or unsubstantiated? Possibly, I know I'm not qualified to assess that, but he does support his reasoning, even if it's wrong. If he had said, "Based on my understanding of what a sociopath is, and the facts as I understand them from Harry Markopolos' book, "No One Would Listen", I think Madoff is a borderline sociopath at least, and possibly an outright sociopath." would you have taken as much offense? Does that sentence not express a useful point of view with respect to the argument that Madoff is different than Holmes?
It's tricky, because our good-intentioned attempts to improve discourse can actually have the effect of stifling discourse when this tendency progresses farther. There are many topics that fall under race and sex that it's hard to rationally discuss because people view the asking of the question itself as insensitive. For example, try posing a question about advantages of a population (race, sex, insular group) based on genetics in a submission here that's related in some way, and you might find you've been down voted and possibly called racist or sexist (likely in more words but to the same effect) prior to anyone actually paying attention to the question you're really trying to ask, and whether it has merit. It's hard for people to stay rational when someone questions the foundations upon which we build a lot of our beliefs (such as people are born equal).
I find a good rule-of-thumb for me in situations where I feel the need to call out the method in which someone raised a point, but not necessarily the point itself, is to pose it as a question and ask whether the method they chose really helped or hindered their point, and to try to do so in a way that's not condescending (which I hope you don't take this comment as, it's surely not intended that way). For example:
"Is the label sociopath really appropriate, and do you think it was needed to make your point?"
In this case, I think scott_s does think it's appropriate (that was made clear), and because of that is was his point. Now, if the original comment was something like "You can't compare Madoff to Holmes, he's in a different category because he's a sociopath." then I would think differently, as there's little useful substance to that comment and it's not really substantiated.
Okay, got that off my chest. Feel free to ignore as you see fit... :)
Re: U.S. Bans Theranos CEO Elizabeth Holmes from Operating Labs for Two Years
#233Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm curious. I have not heard a single thing about Theranos's downfall outside of the comments here on HN. Since you mention "press who broke ... stories", are there any articles out there that would also make me join the "Theranos is a fraud" crowd?
Issues with Theranos and the company's claims have been widely reported. One of the reasons there were discussions here on HN was that the news and articles that brought up these issues were submitted, voted up and then we all had a discussion on those articles and videos. The WSJ reporting in particular has been deeply investigative where most of the rest of the media has just sniffed around at what appears to be a…
Re: U.S. Bans Theranos CEO Elizabeth Holmes from Operating Labs for Two Years
#234Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm curious. I have not heard a single thing about Theranos's downfall outside of the comments here on HN. Since you mention "press who broke ... stories", are there any articles out there that would also make me join the "Theranos is a fraud" crowd?
Much of the initial reporting was by John Careyrou, writing for the Wall Street Journal. This article is representative: http://www.wsj.com/articles/theranos-has-struggled-with-bloo...
http://www.businessinsider.com/science-of-elizabeth-holmes-t...
http://www.businessinsider.com.au/scientist-skeptical-thrano...
Re: U.S. Bans Theranos CEO Elizabeth Holmes from Operating Labs for Two Years
#235Earlier quoted context omitted.
One sees the the same thing in nuclear fusion. All these companies popping up that aren't bothering to consult experts and will have to learn lessons the hard way.
Most of the fusion companies I've seen founded lately are led by people who have been scientists in this field for decades. To which companies of you refer?
Re: U.S. Bans Theranos CEO Elizabeth Holmes from Operating Labs for Two Years
#236I 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…
> Real kudos to the press who broke and made very public the stories. This was the media at its finest. On the other hand, most of the press was more than happy to play along with this charade. Those in the media who ran with lazy profiles enabling this fraud should be remembered.
https://www.propublica.org/podcast/item/how-a-reporter-pierc...
Re: U.S. Bans Theranos CEO Elizabeth Holmes from Operating Labs for Two Years
#237I'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.
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…
I don't mean to draw parallels, but I remember when Jobs announced the iPhone, everyone was very skeptical. Some called it the "Jesus Phone". I heard that when the iPhone was finally launched, Blackberry engineers went out and bought a few to see how he had done it.
Of course, just because there are skeptics it does not mean that the product is good. E.g., all the "perpetual motion" machines out there...
Re: U.S. Bans Theranos CEO Elizabeth Holmes from Operating Labs for Two Years
#238I 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…
> Real kudos to the press who broke and made very public the stories. This was the media at its finest. On the other hand, most of the press was more than happy to play along with this charade. Those in the media who ran with lazy profiles enabling this fraud should be remembered.
Holmes' complete inability to answer simple direct questions was a huge flag to me, and when I saw it in interviews I was really waiting for the press to pounce and it just never seemed to come.
"So you say you aren't approved to do any testing?" wink wink
""
"moving on, what's it like being a woman running a startup?"
Re: U.S. Bans Theranos CEO Elizabeth Holmes from Operating Labs for Two Years
#239Earlier quoted context omitted.
> the incumbents who said that his ideas would never work which ideas? Is there really that much innovative stuff by elon musk? My impression is, that it was always more about economic feasibility than technical feasibility. Competitors to Tesla and SpaceX existed before those were founded but they lacked the investment.
I would say at the very least, the construction of the Model S and the supercharger network are hugely innovative.
Sure, but not something that critics said was technically impossible (not likely to be viable as a business model, sure, but that's a different class of complaint.)
Re: U.S. Bans Theranos CEO Elizabeth Holmes from Operating Labs for Two Years
#240Earlier quoted context omitted.
Solar panel roadways for latter
That falls clearly into the former category. Extreme to the point of being nonsensical in its impracticality (cost of installation, cost of replacement, current PV efficiencies, etc), but not fundamentally impossible.