U.S. Files Criminal Charges Against Theranos’s Elizabeth Holmes, Ramesh Balwani • Hacker News Board

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

#411

Post by astura » Sat, Jun 16, 2018, 12:05 PM UTC

tomxor wrote: post #404

dghughes wrote: post #303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even speeding tickets or anything most normal people would find a burden are nothing to super rich. But making few days in jail mandatory is a major deterrent. Then again even people texting and driving are not swayed by fines. In my region of the world a $3,000 fine is not a deterrent to many people. I say jail time would change that attitude.

> Even speeding tickets or anything most normal people would find a burden are nothing to super rich. I'm not sure how it works in your country but in the UK too many speeding tickets and you will loose your license. The exact number depends on the severity of each offence, but we get max of 12 points over 3 years [1] so they stick with you - repeat offenders are given even stricter rules after getting their license…

So?

What is stopping someone who loses their license from just driving anyway? They've already shown not to give a shit, so they'll continue driving without a license.

My dad lost his license many years ago and never stopped driving. He gets arrested once in a while, doesn't stop him.

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

#412

Post by chrisoverzero » Sat, Jun 16, 2018, 12:18 PM UTC

wpietri wrote: post #181

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…

One of the patterns that interests me a lot is supernormal stimulus. An organism is evolved to deal with a stimulus in a certain range, and something comes along that is so far outside it that things break. The classic example is Niko Tinbergen, who created models of fish that were rounder and redder than the real fish, who would ignore other real fish and focus on the models. The human ability to refine things produ…

> […] "drinking the kool-aid". Which is a metaphor Jobs used for how he wanted people to react to the Mac […]

Google is showing me nothing for this. Do you have a citation?

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

#413

Post by celticninja » Sat, Jun 16, 2018, 12:22 PM UTC

astura wrote: post #411

tomxor wrote: post #404

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Even speeding tickets or anything most normal people would find a burden are nothing to super rich. I'm not sure how it works in your country but in the UK too many speeding tickets and you will loose your license. The exact number depends on the severity of each offence, but we get max of 12 points over 3 years [1] so they stick with you - repeat offenders are given even stricter rules after getting their license…

So? What is stopping someone who loses their license from just driving anyway? They've already shown not to give a shit, so they'll continue driving without a license. My dad lost his license many years ago and never stopped driving. He gets arrested once in a while, doesn't stop him.

Then your father is a selfish individual. If he isn't licensed then he isn't insured. If he caused an accident, even without causing injury or death, he could still make someone else's life incredibly difficult.

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

#414

Post by bravenewthrow » Sat, Jun 16, 2018, 12:24 PM UTC

astura wrote: post #411

tomxor wrote: post #404

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Even speeding tickets or anything most normal people would find a burden are nothing to super rich. I'm not sure how it works in your country but in the UK too many speeding tickets and you will loose your license. The exact number depends on the severity of each offence, but we get max of 12 points over 3 years [1] so they stick with you - repeat offenders are given even stricter rules after getting their license…

So? What is stopping someone who loses their license from just driving anyway? They've already shown not to give a shit, so they'll continue driving without a license. My dad lost his license many years ago and never stopped driving. He gets arrested once in a while, doesn't stop him.

Sorry to hear. It’s unfortunate that we can’t choose our parents.

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

#415

Post by save_ferris » Sat, Jun 16, 2018, 12:24 PM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #383

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…

> Too bad the US can’t retrospectively prosecute bankers for 2008 and claw back their size-subsidized, low risk premium profits. The Theranos case clearly illustrates why. Fraud by the top executives of a company, who lied about what their technology can do to raise a bunch of money, and endangered patients in the process--that is a story you can explain to a jury. Even if you think there are "bankers" (curiously, yo…

>Even if you think there are "bankers" (curiously, you do not identify specific bankers) who broke the law, good luck explaining to a jury exactly what anyone did that was illegal.

Prosecutors who investigated 2008 came away saying that there was no evidence of criminal intent, based on the fact that they didn't break or intend to break any laws in the process of making their really stupid bets. Preet Bharara, former US attorney in New York after the crisis, discussed this in his podcast fairly recently.

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

#416

Post by astura » Sat, Jun 16, 2018, 12:25 PM UTC

celticninja wrote: post #413

astura wrote: post #411

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So? What is stopping someone who loses their license from just driving anyway? They've already shown not to give a shit, so they'll continue driving without a license. My dad lost his license many years ago and never stopped driving. He gets arrested once in a while, doesn't stop him.

Then your father is a selfish individual. If he isn't licensed then he isn't insured. If he caused an accident, even without causing injury or death, he could still make someone else's life incredibly difficult.

Yes, my dad is a horrible person,I thought I was extremely clear about that.

Other family members I know who have lost their license, it's stopped extractly zero people from driving. If you don't care about the other laws enough to get caught breaking them enough to lose your license you don't care about breaking "no driving without a license" law.

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

#417

Post by bookofjoe » Sat, Jun 16, 2018, 12:34 PM UTC

yborg wrote: post #336

bookofjoe wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well stated. I'm a retired neurosurgical anesthesiologist who relied on accurate blood test results to manage major intracranial procedures. No way would I accept a finger-stick hemoglobin/hematocrit as the basis on which to decide on the need for blood transfusion. Why? Because as a medical intern I did them routinely, because I had to get a number to present at morning rounds and even our excellent STAT Lab (LAC-US…

This is the first explanation I've ever heard in 30 years over dozens of physicians/nurses for why a blood draw needs so much sample. And I wonder if young med students/nurses are taught that little fact about squeezing a fingerstick...

My residents were ;-)

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

#418

Post by tyleo » Sat, Jun 16, 2018, 12:35 PM UTC

dvtv75 wrote: post #349

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…

It's not just a problem in the US, either. I recently learned of a New Zealand concrete company who deliberately don't bother with environmental compliance and instead just cop a fine and pay it. They budget for the fine every year, rather than spending the money to get into compliance. Edit: change of wording

While not entirely related, this reminds me of some of my friends who park illegally and just pay off the tickets rather than paying for an expensive legal parking pass.

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

#419

Post by Amezarak » Sat, Jun 16, 2018, 12:36 PM UTC

tomxor wrote: post #410

Amezarak wrote: post #409

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is that really equalized? Poor people are much more severely impacted by a loss of their license than rich people. Outside cities, for example, your driver's license is pretty intimately connected to your livelihood. I imagine this is why so many people get busted for driving with a suspended or no license. They have to get to work reliably and at a specific time, or they don't get paid. They have to pick up and drop…

If they don't care about driving and they were being a shit driver then didn't the law also work? either they are forced to drive like less of an idiot or they don't drive... I don't really care if they get a professional driver - good, less dead people on the road.

Right, but then you're worried about getting bad drivers off the road, not proportionate impact. For a poor person, losing their license (and not continuing to drive anyway) is devastating and can mean the impossibility of keeping a job or even raising their kids.

For a rich person, it just means they can't enjoy the pleasure of driving themselves around. You were talking about equalized impact to start with, I really don't see how this is a good example.

> If they don't care about driving and they were being a shit driver

These are also pretty big assumptions. I assume because of my demographic category, the times I was driving, and my car, several years ago, I received nearly two dozen tickets in a five-year period. None of the offenses were for speeding, but for various infractions like not coming to a complete stop (I was absolutely positive in every case that I did, especially after #3 or so I got paranoid about it), failure to yield, etc.

The only reason I have a license today is because I had a professional job, which allowed me the free time to go to court every single time without losing money and fight the ticket. I won every single time. Most people don't even know you can do that, they think you have to pay the fine.

If I had lost my license, I ultimately would have lost even that job. I would have to work remotely.

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

#420

Post by xcccccc » Sat, Jun 16, 2018, 12:37 PM UTC

learc83 wrote: post #285

grigjd3 wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Funny, the PhD taught me to keep what I say fairly limited. On the other hand, I find generalists will say all kinds of crap that "sounds true" but they have at best a weak theory and a couple of anecdotes.

You seem to be making an argument for a weak theory with a couple of anecdotes.

I think by "generalists" he means "people who can talk seemingly brilliantly about a wide range of issues" rather than non-PhDs.

I would agree with his statement then. I have never met a brilliant talker who could actually do anything.

Many top mathematicians appear clumsy in presentations to the uneducated listener. It is a great tragedy that fluent talking (these days aided by teleprompter) passes for intelligence.