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

271–280 of 280 posts

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

#271

Post by gnaritas »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #270
gnaritas wrote: post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually it is an argument as that's one of the defining characteristics of the condition, it's not a great argument because I don't know how he feels, but it's more than just "I disagree" which is no argument at all. In any case, I'm not the OP, I didn't call him a sociopath, I merely said he deserved the label.

How much empathy do you have for the hundreds of people dying in car crashes each day? Not much, or you'd be crippled. It is ridiculous to look at low empathy for strangers and declare no empathy for anyone. So you don't even reach the prerequisite that would let you start to talk about the manifestations of sociopathy.

Bernies victims weren't strangers to him, your point is a strawman.

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

#272

Post by arcticbull »

ben_jones wrote: post #46
BinaryIdiot wrote: post #37

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?

Theirs a few reasons at play that motivate people to NOT return the money. * Sunken cost fallacy (we can still make a come back!) * Failure is unacceptable (returning money is accepting utter failure) * Returning money means you no longer possess it or the power / reputation it yields (you will no longer get a generous salary for example) * Returning hundreds of millions of dollars with a multi-billion dollar loss is…

> * Returning hundreds of millions of dollars with a multi-billion dollar loss is a joke to begin with.

That's the definition of sunk cost fallacy isn't it? It's seeing yourself as someone who lost $9B not someone who has $200M :) that was a good life lesson for me personally.

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

#273

Post by Dylan16807 »

gnaritas wrote: post #271
Dylan16807 wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How much empathy do you have for the hundreds of people dying in car crashes each day? Not much, or you'd be crippled. It is ridiculous to look at low empathy for strangers and declare no empathy for anyone. So you don't even reach the prerequisite that would let you start to talk about the manifestations of sociopathy.

Bernies victims weren't strangers to him, your point is a strawman.

Do you have some info to back that up? A quote like "worked the so-called 'Jewish circuit' of well-heeled Jews he met at country clubs on Long Island and in Palm Beach." doesn't make it sound like these were people he knew well.

(And taking a loan from a friend while it was collapsing is a sign of desperation, something anyone could do, so don't quote me that particular interaction.)

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

#274

Post by gnaritas »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #273
gnaritas wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bernies victims weren't strangers to him, your point is a strawman.

Do you have some info to back that up? A quote like "worked the so-called 'Jewish circuit' of well-heeled Jews he met at country clubs on Long Island and in Palm Beach." doesn't make it sound like these were people he knew well. (And taking a loan from a friend while it was collapsing is a sign of desperation, something anyone could do, so don't quote me that particular interaction.)

You're moving the goal post, having empathy for people you've met and conned is in no way comparable to empathizing over countless victims of car crashes of people you've never met; car crash victims are a statistic, his marks were people he met and conned into investing. Google for five minutes, plenty of his victims met him, these weren't statistics, they were people he stole from using his charm. If you want to sit here and try to defend Madoff, be my guest because clearly, you just want to argue, so I'm done listening.

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

#275

Post by Piloti »

All this underlines a basic problem with R&D startup: it's possible for your company's entire premise, its entire reason for being, to just not work. That's not your fault: it's the nature of research that sometimes it doesn't work (although, let's be clear, there were massive warning signs that Theranos' technology wouldn't work out.) When that happens, you have three options. You can do some kind of pivot, you can admit all to your investors and wind the company up, or you can do an Enron. There's a warning to us all here: if what you're doing is completely on the wrong track, you should admit it and come clean before you find yourself like this and/or in jail. You can't fool everyone forever.

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

#276

Post by Piloti »

ryporter wrote: post #127
brbsix wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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-f…

What law of physics makes what Theranos attempted to achieve impossible? They were still drawing blood from the patient. Thus, it seems theoretically possible for technology to overcome the challenges the approach presents.

It doesn't exactly violate the laws of physics so much as the laws of variance and statistics. Blood content varies from place to place - and a lot of the fluid sampled in a fingerprick isn't blood anyway. (I'm not an expert on this, but credentialed experts in the topic were skeptical from the start.) The result could be right. But it probably won't be.

Let's use an analogy: imagine a tech company said that with their new wondertech, they could do opinion polls where they would only have to poll one person to know who would win the next election or what will happen to the economy. Wow! Magic! Polls would be so much cheaper! Much better forecasting! #Disruption!

Except it's impossible. People vary a lot. Opinion polls work - they can only work - by sampling lots of people. If you sample one person in a halfway close election, there's a good chance that you'll pick someone supporting the losing side.

In retrospect, what Theranos did was the classic Big Lie approach to false claims: make an extremely unlikely claim that was so shocking that it was hard to imagine that they would just lie so blatantly about the trustworthiness of their technology. I think in retrospect people were stunned into submission and accepting that, hey, maybe they had managed to overcome these problems.

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

#277

Post by Piloti »

ryporter wrote: post #87
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.

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…

Yeah, but here's the problem: if you're working in healthcare and your "ridiculous" idea turns out not to work, you have a duty of care to your customers to admit it and close down. Not turn up on TechCrunch Disrupt in a black turtleneck talking about the power of innovation and try to do a deal to put your bogus tech on sale in every supermarket.

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

#278

Post by Piloti »

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…

Yeah, this is the big thing: it's healthcare. Many people have been screwed over by Uber, Twitter and Airbnb in various ways (blacklisted for trying to start unions, losing their rent-controlled apartments, harassment) but normally not to any great or permanent degree, or not that many people anyway. With healthcare, it's a given that people will die if you do it wrong.

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

#279

Post by Dylan16807 »

gnaritas wrote: post #274
Dylan16807 wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you have some info to back that up? A quote like "worked the so-called 'Jewish circuit' of well-heeled Jews he met at country clubs on Long Island and in Palm Beach." doesn't make it sound like these were people he knew well. (And taking a loan from a friend while it was collapsing is a sign of desperation, something anyone could do, so don't quote me that particular interaction.)

You're moving the goal post, having empathy for people you've met and conned is in no way comparable to empathizing over countless victims of car crashes of people you've never met; car crash victims are a statistic, his marks were people he met and conned into investing. Google for five minutes, plenty of his victims met him, these weren't statistics, they were people he stole from using his charm. If you want to si…

Not every sleezy salesperson in the world is a sociopath. You can meet someone in a business context without caring much about them, while not being a sociopath.

It's not 'defending' someone's actions to say that there is no proof of an extreme lack of empathy.

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

#280

Post by gnaritas »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #279
gnaritas wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're moving the goal post, having empathy for people you've met and conned is in no way comparable to empathizing over countless victims of car crashes of people you've never met; car crash victims are a statistic, his marks were people he met and conned into investing. Google for five minutes, plenty of his victims met him, these weren't statistics, they were people he stole from using his charm. If you want to si…

Not every sleezy salesperson in the world is a sociopath. You can meet someone in a business context without caring much about them, while not being a sociopath. It's not 'defending' someone's actions to say that there is no proof of an extreme lack of empathy.

> Not every sleezy salesperson in the world is a sociopath.

Strawman, never said they were. You're arguing with yourself now.

Post reply on HN