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

251–260 of 280 posts

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

#251

Post by csallen »

dragonwriter wrote: post #248
SilasX wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is evidence of the problem being difficult , not a rigorous "perpetual motion"-level impossibility proof. I could write something similar about a proposal to have computers play chess, based on the absurd blowup in elementary operations (think 1940s) and logic gate resets needed to compute a good move.

> That is evidence of the problem being difficult, not a rigorous "perpetual motion"-level impossibility proof. That the uncertainty produced by the source chosen exceeds the acceptable variability in the results is an impossibility proof for a testing method relying exclusively on a single sample from that source having acceptable accuracy, since the accuracy of the test result cannot exceed the accuracy of the sour…

Unless their test involves technology that can lower the uncertainty to acceptable levels, e.g. being able to isolate the blood from certain vessels despite using a prick method.

Simply saying that the source is messy is not a proof that it's impossible to work around that.

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

#252

Post by gmarx »

bllguo wrote: post #226
gmarx wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You underestimate the magic of machine learning! :0...kidding. Sort of. I suspect they thought there was a software solution to this problem (and for all I know there might be)

What? Please elaborate! I can't think of how software overcomes this problem.

I doubt it can but if you did a large number of blood tests with finger stick and a large number at the same time with a regular blood draw you could put that data into some machine learning and see if you could figure out an algorithm to correct the results. You'd probably need more data than just the final counts. Maybe some kind of imaging data? Maybe ions? It's tough to speculate. Machine learning learning is all about finding patterns. Maybe some pattern could be used to do the correction?

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

#253

Post by mikeash »

ceejayoz wrote: post #223
mikeash wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Autopilot doesn't just give up when it can't handle something. It sounds an urgent alarm telling the driver to take over, and if the driver doesn't, it stops the car and turns on the hazard lights. Most drivers will take over and disengage Autopilot in doing so, so your point remains, but I wanted to make it clear that the car isn't just doing a "Jesus^H^H^H^H^HDriver take the wheel!" thing.

My resulting question for Musk would be "at what point does a subsequent accident not count in the deaths-per-mile stat?" Is it when the alarm sounds? When it begins to slow? When it turns on the hazards? When it has come to a complete stop? How would being rear-rended during this process be counted?

Yes, that would be really good to know. I think it's safe to say that they're using reasonable criteria here, but I can totally understand why others would not be so trusting.

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

#254

Post by gmarx »

jasonlaramburu wrote: post #211
gmarx wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't this just a combination of generally admired startup behavior (fake it til you make it) combined with a business on which people's health might depend? When I read that they were using regular lab test machines to perform the majority of tests, it struck me as pretty much what my YC friends reported as received wisdom- that it's legit to start out doing it "by hand" before you get your tech working.

I don't think so. As I understood, their core value proposition was that they could deliver detailed, accurate blood test results with just a few drops of blood and their proprietary analysis technology. In reality, they used traditional venous draws (way more than a few drops), and competitors' systems to deliver test results of lower accuracy than their competitors. If they were really 'doing it by hand,' they woul…

Not so (if I understand your point). They were using the competitor systems on a few drops of blood. I read they were diluting the blood and then correcting the results. This is doing the same thing without the tech in the hopes that they would eventually make their tech work

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

#255

Post by TillE »

csallen wrote: post #251
dragonwriter wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That is evidence of the problem being difficult, not a rigorous "perpetual motion"-level impossibility proof. That the uncertainty produced by the source chosen exceeds the acceptable variability in the results is an impossibility proof for a testing method relying exclusively on a single sample from that source having acceptable accuracy, since the accuracy of the test result cannot exceed the accuracy of the sour…

Unless their test involves technology that can lower the uncertainty to acceptable levels, e.g. being able to isolate the blood from certain vessels despite using a prick method. Simply saying that the source is messy is not a proof that it's impossible to work around that.

The source is not merely messy. It's a tiny sample of a fluid which is not absolutely consistent throughout.

This is a fundamental problem. You might luck into roughly correct results most of the time, but the basic nature of statistics is against you.

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

#257

Post by SilasX »

Fede_V wrote: post #40

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…

I'm not sure how you would get that "don't sell faulty medical devices as legit ones" would be pg's "rules that don't matter".

Now, they were certainly exposed and shut down by regulators who are (often) more concerned about the rules that don't matter, but it's really uncharitable to imply he things that accuracy of medical devices is something that "doesn't matter".

>Had zenefits managed to grow even more or hire some key lobbyists and get the law changed in time, their CEO would be hailed as a visionary genius that cut through pointless red tape.

Not sure that's the best example to make your point -- I think that the Zenefits fiasco exposed something I didn't realize before, that we make brokers go through pointless training that doesn't teach them anything, and doesn't make them better at navigating ethical dilemmas, all because we tolerated fraudulent salesmen giving the defense that, "but no one gave me a training video that told me not to defraud customers!"

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

#258

Post by scott_s »

kbenson wrote: post #232
oldmanjay wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you think you have such powerful psychiatric skills that you can third-hand diagnose a man?

He very clearly expressed it as an opinion . HN as a community seems more aware and mindful of mental health and illness issues (which is good!), but we need to be careful to not let over-sensitivity prevent rational discourse. 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 m…

It was part of my point, but not the main part. My main point is that Holmes and Madoff are potentially different - that I think Madoff is probably a sociopath is only part of that. That is hard to objectively establish. But what is objectively established is that Madoff knew what he was doing. I am unsure if Holmes is knowingly scamming people. My main concern with the comment I replied to is that, based on my reading, they implied Madoff may have unknowingly defrauded people, which is not the case. He knew what he was doing. Unfortunately, is-or-is-not-a-sociopath became the most commented on part.

Thanks for applying the principle of charity! (In case the tone of my text is unclear, that is a genuine sentiment.)

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

#259

Post by kbenson »

scott_s wrote: post #258
kbenson wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He very clearly expressed it as an opinion . HN as a community seems more aware and mindful of mental health and illness issues (which is good!), but we need to be careful to not let over-sensitivity prevent rational discourse. 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 m…

It was part of my point, but not the main part. My main point is that Holmes and Madoff are potentially different - that I think Madoff is probably a sociopath is only part of that. That is hard to objectively establish. But what is objectively established is that Madoff knew what he was doing. I am unsure if Holmes is knowingly scamming people. My main concern with the comment I replied to is that, based on my readi…

Sure, I got that. I misspoke a bit when I saw "that was his point". You used the sociopath statement not as the main point, but to drive that point. Not knowing (even possibly), is much different than definitely knowing and not caring. It's a double edged sword, in that the label quickly illustrates the difference you are pointing out, but then you have to deal with people focusing on the word and not the point. That makes it appropriate to use IMO, though sometimes self-defeating. :/

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

#260

Post by wmil »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #230
scott_s wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I use the word because, based on his actions, I think he does not have empathy for other people. He knowingly defrauded thousands of people, often depleting all of their savings. The scale of his fraud, and the length of time he perpetuated it, is staggering.

Brains don't handle scale well. Defrauding a thousand people can be easier empathy-wise than defrauding a single person, because it's a statistic rather than an individual. You cannot use the total scale in trying to judge whether someone has empathy. The impulse to associate 'bad actions' with 'inherently bad people' can make it harder for people to realize when they are acting badly and to pull out. http://www.npr.…

Madoff was quite unusual because he was very actively involved in the upperclass Jewish philanthropic community. It's also where most of his victims came from.

That's one of the reasons he was able to get away with it for so long. People assumed that he wouldn't steal from members of his own community like that. So most observers assumed he found a way to front run trades on his other funds without getting caught, and were looking for evidence of that.

Post reply on HN