We Shouldn’t Be Surprised at the Theranos Fraud • Hacker News Board

Re: We Shouldn’t Be Surprised at the Theranos Fraud

#241

Post by dpark » Fri, Jun 08, 2018, 3:18 AM UTC

buvanshak wrote: post #239

dpark wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Shrug . Maybe they do have everything they need for self-driving in terms of hardware. Given that no one has full self-driving, no one has an actual list of the necessary hardware. I still see a claim about future functionality as a far different thing (even if they are wrong ) than a false claim about existing functionality.

> Given that no one has full self-driving, no one has an actual list of the necessary hardware. Exactly what makes this false claim. Imagine someone gave you a drug and claim that it can cure cancer. It would be a false claim, even though it is possible that in future, it might turn out to be capable of curing cancer, by some specific method of application. The only problem is that that method is unknown today and no…

If I invite you over for dinner and tell you that I'm going to order Chinese food, but then I order Mexican food instead because the Chinese restaurant was closed, that's not a "false claim" and it's not fraud. It's simply incorrect (and annoying and perhaps shortsighted). Fraud requires bad faith. If you make a claim in good faith, then it is not fraud, even if it turns out that you are wrong.

If Tesla believes, in good faith, that their hardware is sufficient to enable full self-driving, them it is not fraud. They might be wrong. They might even be incompetent, but that's not the same as fraud. Obviously, if they do not believe their hardware is sufficient, then it is fraud.

Now, if Tesla sold you a car and told you that it is capable of fully self-driving right now, that would be indisputable fraud, because this claim cannot be made in good faith. This is what Theranos did. They did not claim that they had a potential solution. They claimed they had a completed product.

Re: We Shouldn’t Be Surprised at the Theranos Fraud

#242

Post by buttcoinslol » Fri, Jun 08, 2018, 4:43 AM UTC

Ibai0tha wrote: post #174

twoodfin wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's unfortunate that your brother and others couldn't publicly trade on this knowledge. That simultaneously would have made a ton of money and disseminated through the market the valuable information that folks were betting megabucks that Theranos was full of it, limiting their fraudulent climb into the stratosphere. This is a long way of saying that we may have created too many disincentives for large companies to…

Or prediction markets that investors could use as a second opinion to get a corrective input on their own views. If you invest 100M you might as well throw another 10k at a prediction market if you're confident in yours and there are naysayers who would bet against you.

These are called financial derivatives.

Re: We Shouldn’t Be Surprised at the Theranos Fraud

#243

Post by buvanshak » Fri, Jun 08, 2018, 8:19 AM UTC

dpark wrote: post #241

buvanshak wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Given that no one has full self-driving, no one has an actual list of the necessary hardware. Exactly what makes this false claim. Imagine someone gave you a drug and claim that it can cure cancer. It would be a false claim, even though it is possible that in future, it might turn out to be capable of curing cancer, by some specific method of application. The only problem is that that method is unknown today and no…

If I invite you over for dinner and tell you that I'm going to order Chinese food, but then I order Mexican food instead because the Chinese restaurant was closed, that's not a "false claim" and it's not fraud. It's simply incorrect (and annoying and perhaps shortsighted). Fraud requires bad faith . If you make a claim in good faith, then it is not fraud, even if it turns out that you are wrong. If Tesla believes, in…

You are squinting too hard. Don't squint too hard. You ll miss out all the important details.

As you said earlier that "no one has an actual list of the necessary hardware". And if that is true, claiming that "our cars have full self driving hardware", is nothing but a big, fat lie.

That is like selling a computer by saying that it has "full stock prediction hardware".Oh, I am not a fraud because I sincerely believe that my computer can see into the future. It just needs the right software. Oh believe me, I make this claim in good faith.

What a crock of shit.

Re: We Shouldn’t Be Surprised at the Theranos Fraud

#244

Post by Radim » Fri, Jun 08, 2018, 11:25 AM UTC

mlthoughts2018 wrote: post #237

Radim wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If someone like Holmes can become a billionaire by peddling nothing except lies and hope, what’s the real value of the software and tech industries if you take away the hype and money machines that surround them? "Real value" is a tricky concept. What is and isn't real? Clearly societies have evolved (and are still evolving) to incorporate "dreams, future potential and hype inertia" into the equation, so anecdotall…

I think you missed the point of the parent comment. It wasn’t to debate relative value in a philosophical sense. I think it was trying to say that if someone like Holmes (& board members) get rich this way (and it takes such effort to catch what they’re doing and bring actual consequences), then it in turn greatly devalues software labor. Think of it this way: if people think this is a good strategy because it does w…

I agree with that. What I am contesting is that what you and OP describe is such a bad thing wholesale. Holmes should definitely be punished, and the engineering/dreaming trade-off corrected. No question about that, it seems she was outright lying, not just "chasing dreams".

My point is that hype and chasing (improbable, stupid, exploitative) dreams are a spectrum, not a binary. Calls for appreciating "real value" (WTH is that? who defines?) and "removing hype" bring painful memories — it's not just a philosophical point for me, coming from the Eastern block. These feedback cycles are shorter than you think.

The objective function of what we should optimize for is unknown, but I'm sure 100% "honest engineering labour" and "good at engineering" and 0% hype would be a terrible, short-sighted, deadly idea. We need dreams and inertia to escape local minima, we need the collective goal correction.

That's the silver lining in this Holmes case too: the public debate brings about such correction. I voice the dangers of over-correction.

Re: We Shouldn’t Be Surprised at the Theranos Fraud

#245

Post by dpark » Fri, Jun 08, 2018, 12:26 PM UTC

buvanshak wrote: post #243

dpark wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I invite you over for dinner and tell you that I'm going to order Chinese food, but then I order Mexican food instead because the Chinese restaurant was closed, that's not a "false claim" and it's not fraud. It's simply incorrect (and annoying and perhaps shortsighted). Fraud requires bad faith . If you make a claim in good faith, then it is not fraud, even if it turns out that you are wrong. If Tesla believes, in…

You are squinting too hard. Don't squint too hard. You ll miss out all the important details. As you said earlier that "no one has an actual list of the necessary hardware". And if that is true, claiming that "our cars have full self driving hardware", is nothing but a big, fat lie. That is like selling a computer by saying that it has "full stock prediction hardware".Oh, I am not a fraud because I sincerely believe…

Again, shrug. I don’t know that Tesla is wrong. They already have AutoPilot. It is not entirely unreasonable that they believe the gap to full self driving will be filled entirely by software.

You insist on assuming that they are operating in bad faith by making a prediction and you keep giving bad faith examples as metaphors. If I sold you a car and told you that a future update would automatically dim and brighten the headlights based on whether the road was empty, would that be fraud? Assuming your car came with what I believed to be sufficient hardware capabilities to pull this off, this isn’t a bad faith claim unless I do not intend to deliver.

Re: We Shouldn’t Be Surprised at the Theranos Fraud

#246

Post by specialist » Fri, Jun 08, 2018, 12:50 PM UTC

Frondo wrote: post #240

specialist wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You’ve observed central count? You’ve attended the canvassing board meetings? You’ve audited an election? You vetted the certification of the hardware, software, rules, procedures used by your jurisdiction? You’ve collaborated with the nationwide network of admins, vendors, academics, and activists on these issues? Can you refute anything I’ve stated? Do you even know how your ballot is processed? Did I say anything…

This is such a ridiculous reply. "You've audited an election?" It's on par with "you've inspected the rain clouds, you've watched the rain fall into the Bull run watershed, you've inspected the reservoirs, the pipes, done salinity and chlorination tests on your tap water?" Voter fraud in Oregon is virtually non-existent, and all you can do is raise the spectre of I don't even know what. It'd be silly if it weren't so…

I'm sorry you're offended by things I didn't say. I now feel silly and ridiculous. Thank you for setting me straight.

Re: We Shouldn’t Be Surprised at the Theranos Fraud

#247

Post by jlj » Fri, Jun 08, 2018, 2:43 PM UTC

sjburt wrote: post #167

jlj wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Were his losses insured or recovered somehow after the collapse? Or was the investor money all gone by then?

Not publishing the story wouldn't have saved Murdoch's $125m. The story just reflected the truth of the matter, which was that the company had nothing and never did.

Speculating that he might have lost less than $125 million by publishing the story. How much of the investment was recovered or it's that still TBD?

Once the fraud was exposed and the company began winding down, spending would quickly slow down and that might have put investors in a better position to recover something, versus loosing everything.

Re: We Shouldn’t Be Surprised at the Theranos Fraud

#248

Post by buvanshak » Sat, Jun 09, 2018, 2:26 AM UTC

dpark wrote: post #245

buvanshak wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are squinting too hard. Don't squint too hard. You ll miss out all the important details. As you said earlier that "no one has an actual list of the necessary hardware". And if that is true, claiming that "our cars have full self driving hardware", is nothing but a big, fat lie. That is like selling a computer by saying that it has "full stock prediction hardware".Oh, I am not a fraud because I sincerely believe…

Again, shrug . I don’t know that Tesla is wrong. They already have AutoPilot. It is not entirely unreasonable that they believe the gap to full self driving will be filled entirely by software. You insist on assuming that they are operating in bad faith by making a prediction and you keep giving bad faith examples as metaphors. If I sold you a car and told you that a future update would automatically dim and brighten…

>Assuming your car came with what I believed to be sufficient hardware capabilities to pull this off...

You have said it yourself that no one know enough to make this assumption. How can Tesla then make this assumption?

Re: We Shouldn’t Be Surprised at the Theranos Fraud

#249

Post by dpark » Sat, Jun 09, 2018, 3:27 AM UTC

buvanshak wrote: post #248

dpark wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Again, shrug . I don’t know that Tesla is wrong. They already have AutoPilot. It is not entirely unreasonable that they believe the gap to full self driving will be filled entirely by software. You insist on assuming that they are operating in bad faith by making a prediction and you keep giving bad faith examples as metaphors. If I sold you a car and told you that a future update would automatically dim and brighten…

>Assuming your car came with what I believed to be sufficient hardware capabilities to pull this off... You have said it yourself that no one know enough to make this assumption. How can Tesla then make this assumption?

Ok. From your standpoint literally every contract for work/production is fraud. Until you do the work, you can't be certain you can produce the contracted result, so it's fraud.

Your argument boils down to being unable to predict the future with 100% accuracy. Most people don't consider the constraints of reality to constitute fraud.

Re: We Shouldn’t Be Surprised at the Theranos Fraud

#250

Post by buvanshak » Sat, Jun 09, 2018, 7:25 AM UTC

dpark wrote: post #249

buvanshak wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Assuming your car came with what I believed to be sufficient hardware capabilities to pull this off... You have said it yourself that no one know enough to make this assumption. How can Tesla then make this assumption?

Ok. From your standpoint literally every contract for work/production is fraud. Until you do the work, you can't be certain you can produce the contracted result, so it's fraud. Your argument boils down to being unable to predict the future with 100% accuracy. Most people don't consider the constraints of reality to constitute fraud.

That is what you said. You said no one knows the full list of hardware requirements to make full self driving work. Tesla is claiming that their cars have this "full hardware for self driving".

In other words the company is as genuine as the quack around the corner who sell cancer cure...