Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

U.S. Files Criminal Charges Against Theranos’s Elizabeth Holmes, Ramesh Balwani

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–280 of 533 posts

Re: U.S. Files Criminal Charges Against Theranos’s Elizabeth Holmes, Ramesh Balwani

#271

Post by MBCook »

comex wrote: post #136
epistasis wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure if there were "experts" of the same caliber calling the iPhone impossible. In fact, I don't recall anybody saying it was impossible, but would like to find out more. I remember a ton of doubt, after launch, that it would be successful, but those people weren't really experts.

Here’s one example. Apparently RIM’s employees collectively thought it was impossible (to achieve the stated battery life); I think they count as experts: > RIM had a complete internal panic when Apple unveiled the iPhone in 2007, a former employee revealed this weekend. The BlackBerry maker is now known to have held multiple all-hands meetings on January 10 that year, a day after the iPhone was on stage, and to have…

That was exactly the anecdote I was thinking of.

Re: U.S. Files Criminal Charges Against Theranos’s Elizabeth Holmes, Ramesh Balwani

#272

Post by dragonwriter »

icelancer wrote: post #172
atombender wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This interview with John Carreyrou [1], the Wall Street Journal journalist who is largely responsible for exposing Theranos, goes into a lot of detail. It's long, so if you want a shorter answer, jump to the question "What technology did Theranos actually develop?": Basically there were three iterations of the technology. The first one used microfluidics, which are basically the repurposing of the micro-fabrication t…

>> The short answer is her Jobs-like "reality distortion field" -- she was exceedingly good at convincing non-scientists that their science worked. This confuses a lot of people (not saying you are one of them), but this is really common in intelligent non-experts. People vastly overestimate how intelligent they are when they place value on their intelligence; in other words, they like thinking they are smart. When t…

> People vastly overestimate how intelligent they are when they place value on their intelligence;

Even if they don't, intelligence does not replace domain knowledge.

Re: U.S. Files Criminal Charges Against Theranos’s Elizabeth Holmes, Ramesh Balwani

#273

Post by keo93ndn »

mhneu wrote: post #238

Excellent news for American society. “The Chickenshit Club” by Eisinger recently explained why the lack of criminal charges had emboldened white collar crime. Basically, individuals need to have the risk of criminal charges if they do something very egregious - they need to have skin in the game. The US Justice Dept has in the past two decades largely only been fining corporations. And so companies estimate risk and…

I wish I could agree but really the people that lost were rich people

This will do jack squat to set precedents to the benefit of lower castes

Elizabeth is a pariah and “not one of them” anymore. Don’t bite the hand that feeds

That sounds cynical, but: https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/8793/what-did-j...

Re: U.S. Files Criminal Charges Against Theranos’s Elizabeth Holmes, Ramesh Balwani

#274

Post by anon23423532 »

aphextron wrote: post #14

Between this and Manafort being sent to jail, what a wonderful day for the DOJ. God I love this country so much.

If you like corruption sure:

FBI Employee: “How did the (witness) go?”

Agent 1: “Awesome. Lied his ass off… Ridic(ulous).”

FBI Employee: “Would be funny if he was the only guy charged in this deal.”

Agent 1: “I know…. Even if he said the truth and didn’t have a clearance when handling the secure fax – ain’t no one gonna do (bleep).”

Truly a beacon of truth for all American's to follow

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/columnists/howie_carr/2018/...

Re: U.S. Files Criminal Charges Against Theranos’s Elizabeth Holmes, Ramesh Balwani

#275

Post by tptacek »

mchannon wrote: post #266
tptacek wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You were convicted both of a scheme where you bypassed OfficeMax's limits on the number of printer cartridges any one person could redeem, and for a separate scheme where you claimed the purchases of strangers as your own to cash in on their rebates. A lot of people here might disagree with how much prosecutorial attention was heaped on you, but "victim" is laying it on a bit thick. The new infographic is a nice touc…

Tom, you're still not getting it. Falsified evidence. Not just falsified, but clearly in the case record falsified. Anyone can be a victim of that. Happens every day. Thanks for the backhanded compliment on the infographic; I wouldn't mind your following me around if you got your facts right.

It's "Thomas". Please don't accuse me of "following you around"; my comments on this thread precede yours. I think the infographic is well-produced.

Re: U.S. Files Criminal Charges Against Theranos’s Elizabeth Holmes, Ramesh Balwani

#276

Post by curuinor »

dreamcompiler wrote: post #166
api wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The short answer is her Jobs-like "reality distortion field" -- she was exceedingly good at convincing ... Considering this and the lack of substance behind her claims, I would personally bet money that she is a clinical psychopath. The most disturbing thing I have ever observed about human beings is our tendency to follow psychopaths. Psychopaths seem to have this gravity around them and people just fall into line…

I don't know about Holmes (other than having read Carreyrou's book) but I've been around pathological, charismatic narcissists enough to be as fascinated as you at their ability to lie to the face of very accomplished people and be completely believed. It's almost like executives need a training course in spotting and dealing with them.

But not the actual specialists.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/27/opinion/dont-blame-silico...

Re: U.S. Files Criminal Charges Against Theranos’s Elizabeth Holmes, Ramesh Balwani

#277

Post by majos »

adventured wrote: post #188
majos wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's so bad about the black turtleneck?

In the tech industry, if it's worn as a uniform, it's probably a dead give-away that the person should be avoided (especially if there's any other supporting evidence related to negative behavior). It's a Jobsian mimic. There was one Steve Jobs, he was extraordinary in some ways, and he wasn't very nice. There isn't going to be another, he was the product of a unique circumstance. The next great person/s will be thei…

Ah. I read that she picked the black turtleneck as a compromise between being professional and not drawing too much attention to herself or dressing "too feminine" -- though who knows how true that is.

Re: U.S. Files Criminal Charges Against Theranos’s Elizabeth Holmes, Ramesh Balwani

#278

Post by paulie_a »

zebnyc wrote: post #264
paulie_a wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fake it until you make it is just a nice way of saying fraud. People that do that are being deceitful and should be publicly shamed and face criminal prosecution in some cases. They are scam artists, not honest entrepreneurs.

Are you going to say that to the founders of reddit & airbnb?

I would absolutely say that to them. It's doubtful they actually committed a crime but it shows a lack of character and constituition to say the least and potentially fraud to their investors. Fake it until you make it makes you a scam artist, con man, flim flan man etc... People that embrace that philosophy are frauds and cheats that should not be trusted.

Re: U.S. Files Criminal Charges Against Theranos’s Elizabeth Holmes, Ramesh Balwani

#279

Post by joering2 »

mhneu wrote: post #238

Excellent news for American society. “The Chickenshit Club” by Eisinger recently explained why the lack of criminal charges had emboldened white collar crime. Basically, individuals need to have the risk of criminal charges if they do something very egregious - they need to have skin in the game. The US Justice Dept has in the past two decades largely only been fining corporations. And so companies estimate risk and…

Many people on HN and outside "predicted" that criminal charges will follow FTC case, that was no-brainer. But not many know that what truly made it unable for DOJ to "turn the blind eye on", is that many medical decision on real-life patients has been made mostly based on results from Theranos devices that had been wrong so many times.

At least 4 times I wrote about Holmes being charged by DOJ on HN -- now I predict within 3 months they will find victim(s) that are dead today because of improper results of Holmes' devices.

Re: U.S. Files Criminal Charges Against Theranos’s Elizabeth Holmes, Ramesh Balwani

#280

Post by Ice_cream_suit »

delbel wrote: post #249
mhneu wrote: post #238

Excellent news for American society. “The Chickenshit Club” by Eisinger recently explained why the lack of criminal charges had emboldened white collar crime. Basically, individuals need to have the risk of criminal charges if they do something very egregious - they need to have skin in the game. The US Justice Dept has in the past two decades largely only been fining corporations. And so companies estimate risk and…

I was hoping the bankers can still be charged under the Patriot act, there is a provision for something to the effet threat to cause financial risk or damage if I remember. Paulson made a direct threat of financial doom if there was no bailout to President Bush. I think there is a way we can declare them enemy combatants and send them to gitmo for their trial. Sorry for typos, typing with a bad finger the last few da…

That is pretty far fetched.

Using your sketchy rationale, one could claim that you are threatening Paulson and have you charged with a threat to kidnap Paulson to put him in Guantanamo Bay.

And in any legal dispute between you and Paulson, you would be incidental roadkill, in view of his deep pockets.

That is why the legal system has semi-reasonable heuristics that govern the range of interpretations that are acceptable.

Post reply on HN