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

Elizabeth Holmes found guilty

axios.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

471–480 of 1001 posts

Re: Elizabeth Holmes found guilty

#471

Post by lotsofpulp »

approxim8ion wrote: post #468
lotsofpulp wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Very little is known of Mr. Balwani, including why he is called “Sunny.” This might be because Saturday in Hindi and other Indian languages is “sunny-var”, and the day of the week you are born on is a common nickname, in conjunction with “sunny” being an easy to pronounce and common English word.

This is absolutely incorrect. Saturday is called "Shani"-var (pronounced shunny) after the name for the Hindu god of justice [1]. Hindus also map his presence to the planet Saturn. Either way, no relation to the name Sunny at all. Source: several Indian friends of ages 18-50. 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shani

Hmm, I guess I was wrong? I only have the 1 datapoint of the Indian friend named Sunny who told me this.

Re: Elizabeth Holmes found guilty

#472

Post by dragonwriter »

mdoms wrote: post #340
metadat wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hopefully she'll get more, SV could use a good example. Otherwise it signals that wantrepeneurs can keep doing it with minimal repercussions.

Ok I'm not American so perhaps my perspective is different... More than 10 years would be utterly barbaric. The 65 years mentioned in another comment chain would be well beyond the pale. I'm no fan of Holmes, but what good does it serve to lock up non violent criminals for decades?

> I'm no fan of Holmes, but what good does it serve to lock up non violent criminals for decades?

“non-violent” criminals can do much more widespread damage individually than violent criminals are likely to, but are also more likely to be rationally deterrable with a sufficient consequences (which anything you'd willing gamble against the potential upside of the massive crime is not.)

Re: Elizabeth Holmes found guilty

#473

Post by ethbr0 »

mehrshad wrote: post #459
sharkweek wrote: post #25

This will sound weird but I am a collector of swag from large companies that have collapsed due to anything from mismanagement to outright fraud. While we're a rare breed there are others like me out there. Still, even with this oddly specific marketplace being small, let me tell you, the Theranos swag market is hot right now (check eBay if you're curious). Wish I had gone big on this one earlier, because I have a fe…

A colleague of mine was contracted by one of several firms tasked with liquidating Theranos' Newark facilities back in Aug 2018. I took the opportunity to grab the equivalent of $15,000 of tools, furniture, scientific equipment, and of course, swag. All legally - liquidators are tasked with clearing the site of everything by a set time. Had free reign throughout the facility for two days, scavenging through 200k sqft…

If you're in the mood to sell, I'd be interested. 0 -> o + .co @ gmail.

I like hubris branding for the same (mythical) reason Canadian engineers do iron rings [0]: so that maybe when I'm waivering on an important decision, I'll look down at the logo on my coffee cup and remember that some things are more important than immediate professional gratification.

[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Ring

Re: Elizabeth Holmes found guilty

#475

Post by lotsofpulp »

sk5t wrote: post #470
lotsofpulp wrote: post #447

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I recall lots of doubt about Theranos from the beginning, especially due to the board composition.

There was also a lot of scientific doubt about Theranos based on what is actually physically present in a drop of capillary blood.

Yes, I recall that too from multiple posters who claimed they had worked with blood and anyone who had experience in that space was highly suspect of the claims due to inconsistency with current knowledge of limitations.

Basically, barring any miraculous discovery, it was all bullshit and Theranos did not seem to have anyone on their roster capable of delivering a miraculous discovery.

But the board being extra stacked with political power was also seen as a blatant attempt to deflect from not having anything real to show in their product.

Re: Elizabeth Holmes found guilty

#476

Post by iscrewyou »

tootie wrote: post #435
rTX5CMRXIfFG wrote: post #425

These days, whenever someone is being presented as an absolute villain (as in the case of Holmes), comments sections tend to have not a few posts about how the things they’ve done, from a different vantage point, are understandable, or morally ambiguous and not objectively evil, or even amoral. I’m completely opposed to what she has done, but could there be any reason why we all seem to be unanimous that she is objec…

Her main excuse is that she was manipulated by her COO but it seems unlikely. As evil as defrauding investors can be she was it. She also seemed pretty comfortable scamming medical techs and patients. There's just no way she didn't know she was selling snake oil. Maybe she started out with pure wishful thinking that if she talked enough she could will her device into existence but once it started actually testing blo…

Exactly. Anybody can be making a company and say they haven’t done it yet but are making progress.

She said it works and that was a lie. A lie that affect lives and economics of rich and poor alike. Bad combination.

Re: Elizabeth Holmes found guilty

#477

Post by dragonwriter »

testplzignore wrote: post #191
tptacek wrote: post #78

Time to kibitz on the likely sentence! You can get the federal sentencing guidelines here: https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/guidelines-manu... They're long and mostly not relevant except for the sections pertaining to Holmes conduct. Here's the indictment: https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndca/page/file/1135066/download Holmes was found guilty of one 18 USC 1349 charge, and 3 18 USC 1343 charges; the 1343's s…

Based on a very quick reading, I think the most serious offense (the $100M one) would at least land in the 97-121 months bucket. If she serves half of that, best case for her is 4 years. Not too bad.

Unlike many state systems, in the federal system the sentence is close to the actual time you’ll serve, short of a Presidential commutation or some other special intervention. Other than up to 54 days/year good conduct time, there's not systematic early release.

Re: Elizabeth Holmes found guilty

#478

Post by Tempest1981 »

subpixel wrote: post #402
meetingthrower wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One of my biggest regrets is not getting a Kozmo messenger bag from dotcom 1.

I laughed at the CueCat, but now I wish I had one of my own.

Under $20 on ebay:

https://www.ebay.com/b/CueCat-POS-Barcode-Scanners/46706/bn_...

Even some cases of 100 for $500.

Re: Elizabeth Holmes found guilty

#479

Post by secondaryacct »

jonwachob91 wrote: post #40

It blows my mind that she was found guilty for defrauding investors, but not guilty for defrauding patients about their test results. Investors know that every dollar they put into a company could disappear, it's why startups get capital from investors and not bank loans. But a patient does not expect for their blood test results to be completely wrong. Her tests weren't giving false-negatives or false-positives, the…

But then you must charge all the employees who did so, instead of her. Her crime is fraud because she told investor one thing and commanded employees another.

But it's not the army, they could refuse, they all did the tests and gave the false results back to humans, which is unfathomable in healthcare. She s eventually responsible but her job was on investor relationship.

Re: Elizabeth Holmes found guilty

#480

Post by Jensson »

rTX5CMRXIfFG wrote: post #425

These days, whenever someone is being presented as an absolute villain (as in the case of Holmes), comments sections tend to have not a few posts about how the things they’ve done, from a different vantage point, are understandable, or morally ambiguous and not objectively evil, or even amoral. I’m completely opposed to what she has done, but could there be any reason why we all seem to be unanimous that she is objec…

I don't see many call murderers or other serious criminals understandable. Holmes is a serious criminal, why would you expect to find people defending her? I haven't seen anyone defend Jeffrey Skilling either.
Post reply on HN