Live data from Hacker News

Elizabeth Holmes urged employees to hide Theranos’ lab equipment from inspectors

arstechnica.com

61–70 of 264 posts

Re: Elizabeth Holmes urged employees to hide Theranos’ lab equipment from inspectors

#61

The crazy thing about Theranos is that so many people with experience in microfluidics (developed mainly for DNA sequencing although there are other uses) knew that their claims were impossible, technologically speaking. Working with such small volumes to obtain quantitive estimates of blood chemistry is so implausible, as you are introducing uncontrollable variability - micro-evaporation, even tissue localization is…

The problem is that successful startups often start out claiming that which is impossible. Uber was impossible, because it was illegal. Amazon was impossible, as you couldn't pack and ship stuff that cheaply. Personal computers were at one point considered ludicrous.

Who is claiming its impossible is what matters as well as when. If somebody has given something serious thought then their claim could be valid but unless they're providing any evidence it's probably a worthless claim. The evidence is also time constrained as the US going to the moon right now is pretty ludicrous but in a few years maybe somebody will have made a new lander.

Also I don't think you picked good examples.

Uber wasn't the first taxi app so it was definitely possible (IIRC both mapquest & google maps had a taxi tie-in at one point). Amazon used to charge for shipping so the cost of pack & ship is irrelevant (they weren't doing the current VC model of giving out dollars for 50 cents). See https://press.aboutamazon.com/news-releases/news-release-det... .

Personal computers were ludicrous at a time when a computer took up more than a whole room. Just like flying cars are ludicrous but technology changes and thats why due diligence matters, is this company developing any technology or are they lieing.

Re: Elizabeth Holmes urged employees to hide Theranos’ lab equipment from inspectors

#63
post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is that successful startups often start out claiming that which is impossible. Uber was impossible, because it was illegal. Amazon was impossible, as you couldn't pack and ship stuff that cheaply. Personal computers were at one point considered ludicrous.

These examples are all "impossible" due to regulatory or commercial constraints, rather than scientific - which is a category of obstacle somewhat more difficult to overcome.

Not scientific, physical.

Re: Elizabeth Holmes urged employees to hide Theranos’ lab equipment from inspectors

#64

The crazy thing about Theranos is that so many people with experience in microfluidics (developed mainly for DNA sequencing although there are other uses) knew that their claims were impossible, technologically speaking. Working with such small volumes to obtain quantitive estimates of blood chemistry is so implausible, as you are introducing uncontrollable variability - micro-evaporation, even tissue localization is…

Look at the board. Older men. They saw an attractive, young, energetic technology wizard and fell for her charm. I don't know if one could go as far as to say this is female privilege, but I think there was definitely elements of seduction.

Re: Elizabeth Holmes urged employees to hide Theranos’ lab equipment from inspectors

#65

The modern wisdom, "fake it till you make it", requires you to make it, otherwise you'll pay for lying to us.

I'm curious, does this case get so much publicity because it touches upon all the tropes of Silicon Valley? 'Fake it till you make it', 'move fast and break things', 'disrupt the markets', etc. IMHO, this business model is fine when the only things at risk are venture capital and you're trying to sell more widgets, but when it comes to life and safety - bad news.

There are two possible "fake it until you make it" levels going on here. Say you draw a regular sample of blood and run tests with competitor's products until yours work. Tests are real, but everyone thinks your tests are doing the work. That's one way. The other way is you take a drop of blood and produce unreliable results.

Generally "fake it until you make it" has some delivery of the actual product, even if it costs more to produce than it generates in revenue. Or it requires human execution of something which appears to be automated.

The Theranos case is interesting because it straight up didn't work. It definitely crossed over from "getting something done differently than it appears" into "straight up fabrication, intimidation, lies, and buying off the politically influential."

Look at the board for the simple reason it gets a lot of attention (beside hitting all the tropes). Short on medical, long on political influence.

Re: Elizabeth Holmes urged employees to hide Theranos’ lab equipment from inspectors

#67

The crazy thing about Theranos is that so many people with experience in microfluidics (developed mainly for DNA sequencing although there are other uses) knew that their claims were impossible, technologically speaking. Working with such small volumes to obtain quantitive estimates of blood chemistry is so implausible, as you are introducing uncontrollable variability - micro-evaporation, even tissue localization is…

The problem is that successful startups often start out claiming that which is impossible. Uber was impossible, because it was illegal. Amazon was impossible, as you couldn't pack and ship stuff that cheaply. Personal computers were at one point considered ludicrous.

Uber was not generally illegal [0]. So called “Black car” (or private car for hire) services (so called because these cars used to be limousine like vehicles but now can be anything, e.g. UberX) where a driver arranges pickup with a passenger in advance — which is how Uber started - is not regulated in most cities at all, or is regulated very differently than taxis.

What legally distinguishes taxis and requires medallions in many cities is the ability for passengers to “hail” an unknown taxi from the sidewalk and get a ride. (Uber didn’t start out offering taxis, but now some of the vehicles that they make available are also taxis.)

You cannot “hail” an Uber on the street and get a ride in it (unless that Uber, now, happens to also be a taxi). You had to book trips in advance. The trips might have been booked only a few minutes in advance, but that was the legal distinction between these two classes of transportation.

I am not aware of there being any regulation involved if you wanted to arrange a ride from the Seattle airport to the Space Needle with me as your driver on a certain date for a certain price, for example. Or 10 minutes from now. (Actually that’s a bad example. I believe there are certain areas of the city where drivers have to offer city-regulated fixed price fares either to the airport or from the airport or both, to certain sections of downtown. It’s a relatively small area though; I don’t know if it includes the Space Needle or not.)

In fact, Uber was able to grow so quickly because so many of these “private car for hire” services already existed in major cities. The cars were often owner-operated small businesses, with one car or a small fleet of vehicles and employees (with the owner typically being one of the drivers). They were able to tap into this excess supply and put it to use. At least that was the case in Seattle where I spoke to many Uber drivers during its early years, all of whom had existing businesses and wanted to give me their business card to cut out the middleman (Uber). They used Uber to gain additional business during downtime from their other clients, and often offered their business cards to riders before Uber started cracking down on that [1].

Originally if you had a relationship with a private car service and you were planning trips days ahead, then you could typically get a better price than Uber would offer for market rate pricing (once its low promotional discount pricing eased up) with no advanced planning. (However Uber now appears to offer the ability to schedule rides up to 30 days in advance; I don’t know if this change is the fare or not). Since Uber takes a cut of the transaction you can probably still get better pricing from individual private services. The value that Uber offers for most passengers in the ability to get reliable high quality transportation on demand. (High quality in the sense that poor quality drivers are removed from the platform)

Uber provided legitimate value by connecting the supply of private-cars-for-hire with the passengers who wanted to hire them, creating a sort of marketplace. (Not a true marketplace because Ubers set the price of fares; but I’m marketplace in the sense that drivers and passengers can choose to use the platform to connect and conduct a transaction of driving for hire.) Uber won by providing a superior experience for both parties having a reputation system for both sides with a 5-star score.

How many people reading this have had the experience of ordering a taxi and having it arrive late or not at all? Or have simply been frustrated by the lack of visibility into when it will arrive, or whether it’s even coming, when you need to get to the airport? Or when you get to your destination you learn that “the credit card reader is not working”? (which is illegal in many/most cities). I’ve certainly had all of these experiences in many cities with taxis.

Taxi drivers experienced no real penalties for misbehavior like falsely claiming their credit card reader is not working, or for not maintaining it in working order, or for taking tourists on a “scenic route“ to their destination” (unless a passenger called the taxi company and report them - and who would bother? Plus I don’t necessarily know the local law in the area, like whether the taxi is required to have a working credit card reader; and in the days when Uber was building traction, I might not have had mapping software on my phone so as to know whether the taxi was taking me on an unnecessarily long route.)

Uber provided a legitimately better product experience by solving these problems. You could see your vehicle as it traveled to you, eliminating the uncertainty around whether transportation was coming and an ETA for its arrival. You could enter your destination and Uber would provide turn by turn driving instructions that the driver was expected to follow to get to the destination following a close-to-optimal path. If the transportation provider was rude or provided poor service, then you could give them a bad rating, and poor service providers were be removed from the platform. Similarly bad customers that were drunk and misbehaved and did things like throw up in the vehicle would also receive a poor rating and might find themselves kicked off the platform after repeating that type of behavior.

This reputation system was completely missing from taxis and is one of the reasons why they were so dysfunctional in my opinion.

The vast majority of Uber’s growth and expansion was in the unregulated or lightly regulated area of arranging transportation ahead of time between passenger and driver. So long as the driver has a regular driver license in most cities, rides-for-hire that are arranged in advance not regulated, or are minimally regulated (though Uber/Lyft-targeted regulation have appeared in response to their presence).

[0] Various cities subsequently banned it or limited it after the fact, partially in response to political pressure from things like taxi unions, or other reasons; but the core business model was not originally illegal in typical cities.

[1] IMO, I don’t think it’s necessary for Uber to prevent high-end drivers from offering their professional business card when the trip is complete if they do so in a professional way. What Uber offers is the ability to get a ride at any place at any time; I don’t want to have a stack of business cards from private car services in my wallet that I dial one after the other to see if they are free to pick me up — with the same lack of visibility and accountability that taxis used to have.

Re: Elizabeth Holmes urged employees to hide Theranos’ lab equipment from inspectors

#68

The modern wisdom, "fake it till you make it", requires you to make it, otherwise you'll pay for lying to us.

I'm curious, does this case get so much publicity because it touches upon all the tropes of Silicon Valley? 'Fake it till you make it', 'move fast and break things', 'disrupt the markets', etc. IMHO, this business model is fine when the only things at risk are venture capital and you're trying to sell more widgets, but when it comes to life and safety - bad news.

> I'm curious, does this case get so much publicity because it touches upon all the tropes of Silicon Valley?

I think people are so used to being lied to by companies that they’re really happy to see it come back on someone. When’s the last time you saw a press release that wasn’t spun to contort the truth as far as possible? We’re so used to corporate communication being 99% polished turds and, while we accept it, we hate it. Just like all the experts calling out their stuff as impossible, we all know we’re being lied to.

Finally, someone was caught being full of shit in a way that makes them liable.

> IMHO, this business model is fine when the only things at risk are venture capital and you're trying to sell more widgets

I think this business model is normal when it’s other things at risk, but people are enthusiastic to see comeuppance because they’re so sick of this being business as usual.

Re: Elizabeth Holmes urged employees to hide Theranos’ lab equipment from inspectors

#69
post #5

If anyone truly deserves a very long prison sentence it is Elizabeth Holmes. I think we're about to confirm what we've always known and that has been apparent since the start of this case. That rich white people, even if they got their money by taking advantage of others are pretty immune from harsh punishment in the criminal justice system.

I can't recall last time a C-level company executive get into trouble for using deceptive tactics, every S&P500 company does this to some extent. When they get caught, in majority of cases it is a gentle slap on the wrist or given more of a timeout and reallocation of their position. Also unfortunately using public money and delivering a bad product is not a criminal offense, more like being sloppy at what you do. Wi…

Here's a fun one: a telecom CEO (named Elizabeth, too) was forging customer signatures - signatures of people she had known and worked with in many cases - to show to investors.

And she took money from friends and employees, and told them they were getting shares in the company. In reality she used the money to pay off her lifestyle expenses.

To be fair, she probably intended to make good on the investments once the company was wildly successful.

The amazing thing is, the company had hired a new CEO and is actually still operating. Last I heard.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2019-10-08/quintilli...

Re: Elizabeth Holmes urged employees to hide Theranos’ lab equipment from inspectors

#70
post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the SV “fake it ‘till you make it” culture. Right now Tesla is delivering “full self driving” cars that require a human driver at all times. Experts have said that it’s not possible using cameras alone, without LiDAR. Oversell and underdeliver. Fraud works great until it doesn’t.

Isn't the self-driving just a feature on top of the car? They're faking one feature that a customer might opt into -- and none that I know have. Tesla has delivered a performant EV that is nice to drive in and is comparable to other luxury vehicles. It's not exactly faking for quite some time.

The fake it part is calling something full self driving when it does anything but that.
Post reply on HN