Elizabeth Holmes urged employees to hide Theranos’ lab equipment from inspectors • Hacker News Board

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

#161

Post by N00bN00b » Wed, Sep 29, 2021, 6:03 PM UTC

sam0x17 wrote: post #105

SkipperCat wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

All of those things, but also I think a factor we all underestimate is Elizabeth herself has this super creepy presence in nearly every photo and video where she makes an appearance -- something just seems "off", in an almost uncanny valley sort of way, and confirmation that something is in fact "off" in the form of an actual scandal, I think, might satisfy some deep emotion that drove views to the original news stor…

>I think a factor we all underestimate is Elizabeth herself has this super creepy presence in nearly every photo and video where she makes an appearance -- something just seems "off", in an almost uncanny valley sort of way, and confirmation that something is in fact "off" in the form of an actual scandal

Got to learn how to recognize the antisocial ones. This is how you figure that out.

You can fake a lot, but the involuntary eye muscles don't move properly, so you can see it in the eyes.

Some use that to avoid certain people. Some use it to find the people they are looking for. The words that are said don't matter as much. You can just look them in the eyes.

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

#162

Post by overkalix » Wed, Sep 29, 2021, 6:04 PM UTC

MattGaiser wrote: post #45

photochemsyn wrote: post #29

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.

I think there's a substantial difference between impossible and illegal. Uber was mostly possible (don't want to minimize their efforts in operation optimization) but also illegal/unregulated. Same for AirBnB.

Personal Computers on the other hand... that's almost all innovation with a dash of unregulated (garage companies, surreptitious deals, etc).

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

#163

Post by Animats » Wed, Sep 29, 2021, 6:04 PM UTC

All that is in the book "Bad Blood".

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

#164

Post by supperburg » Wed, Sep 29, 2021, 6:05 PM UTC

ta1234567890 wrote: post #87

avalys wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you provide any examples of a high-profile company, ultimately shown to be dishonest, where the early investors were able to “cash out” before this dishonesty became known?

Uber Explanation, since this is being downvoted. Uber might not have lied about their business, but it surely looks like investors never cared about the businesses viability and rather only cared about being able to turn a profit on their investment (which was the point being made by the gp). To this day, it is still not clear if Uber’s business model is viable. Also not to mention the original CEO/founder’s reputati…

The idea that Uber is not profitable is a myth isn’t it? I remember they posted some financial documents a while back that showed them in the red. But when I looked at the papers there were literal billions in advertising and expansion.

Uber runs the app. People call an Uber and they pay money. Some of that money goes to the driver and some goes to Uber. You’re really saying that Uber can’t collect enough money to run their computers and pay some staff? It just doesn’t make sense. Of course they can.

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

#165

Post by smart_creature » Wed, Sep 29, 2021, 6:07 PM UTC

mannerheim wrote: post #113

smart_creature wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not a lawyer or legal expert. But American juries are generally unpredictable and overwhelming evidence doesn't always decide cases (look at the O.J Simpson trial or more recently Bill Cosby or the first Epstein case). I think the general consensus is that there's a lot of damning evidence against her and there's a good chance she'll be found guilty. But a lot depends on how effective her defense is in swaying the ju…

There wasn't overwhelming evidence in the Cosby case, which is precisely why his conviction was overturned. He was convicted based on testimony he was forced to give against himself in a civil trial where he was not allowed to exercise his fifth amendment right against self-incrimination. The previous DA specifically said there wasn't enough evidence to convict Cosby, which is both why he never pursued charges and wh…

You are technically correct but I don't see what the contradiction is. You could say that his testimony was 'overwhelming evidence' (he practically admitted to doing what he was accused of). Yes, improperly obtained and inadmissible, hence the 'technicalities' part. My point is that even an open confession existing somewhere is not a guarantee of conviction or a long prison sentence.

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

#166

Post by 908B64B197 » Wed, Sep 29, 2021, 6:09 PM UTC

photochemsyn wrote: post #29

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…

> What just amazed me is how gullible all the investors were, and how they didn't do due diligence, hire outside experts, or anything. Weird.

What's interesting with Theranos is the composition of it's board... It's exclusively older men with little to no expertise on the subject matter (Channing Robertson might be an exception to the latter rule). Not a single rising female Silicon Valley executive or professor was invited to join, which is surprising considering how much she was advocating for more women in SV.

Maybe she knew that female executives and founders wouldn't have the same reaction to a wide eyed conventionally attractive 19 years old blonde as the 40+ years old men she was used to "deal" with...

I mean, we all know how Marissa Mayer got the job...

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

#167

Post by smart_creature » Wed, Sep 29, 2021, 6:10 PM UTC

RegnisGnaw wrote: post #144

smart_creature wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those are not exactly the same thing. And it would undercut her current defense which is "I was just doing my best and we failed and business failure isn't a crime"

She doesn't have a current defense in the court. The defense in court is all that matters in the trial, not media. The prosecution is presenting the evidence right now, she will have her turn afterwards.

"She doesn't have a current defense in the court.The defense in court is all that matters in the trial, not media"

Huh? I don't even know what this means. According to you her defense is "that she was not of sane state of mind at the time". Maybe you can post another npr link that explains what you mean by no current defense in court.

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

#168

Post by mrkramer » Wed, Sep 29, 2021, 6:10 PM UTC

danjac wrote: post #142

mrkramer wrote: post #123

She defrauded investors out of so much money, she deserves at least 10 years in prison imo.

Frankly don't care about the investors, they won't go hungry and they should have known better. Endangering the lives of ordinary people though - 10 years isn't enough.

But the money which was lost investing in Theranos could've been invested in other companies that would actually save the lives of ordinary people the ones that Theranos was suppose to save.

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

#169

Post by spaetzleesser » Wed, Sep 29, 2021, 6:12 PM UTC

I know there is “fake it till you make it” but usually these companies have some idea how to get success. But as far as I understand Theranos never had any technology or approach that promised to lead to their goals. They just tried various stuff that never worked and lied about it.

It was more like me starting a company that wants to create a battery with ten times the capacity of current batteries but having no idea how to achieve this so I take in a lot of money and desperately try to figure something out while having no promising insight .

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

#170

Post by 908B64B197 » Wed, Sep 29, 2021, 6:14 PM UTC

MattGaiser wrote: post #45

photochemsyn wrote: post #29

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 impossible, because it was illegal.

Radio/Computer dispatch predates Uber. Where Uber got innovative, legally speaking, was making a Black Car service (can't be hailed from the street) just work with scheduling in minutes instead of calling ahead a few hours beforehand.

> Amazon was impossible, as you couldn't pack and ship stuff that cheaply.

Sears did it a hundred year prior here in America.