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…
I have some yik yak socks I got a few months before they went bankrupt. Didn’t know there’s a market for that.
Oh wow, I remember using that app in high-school. That's awesome.
Refer to Wickard v Filburn. Whether a transaction leaves the state doesn't mean dick to interstate commerce clause. The interstate commerce is interpreted to mean basically any possession/production/consumption of goods regardless if they leave the state or even enter commerce. Supreme court decided even growing crops for use on animals on your own land is interstate commerce. This is the reason why you can catch a f…
Fair enough. But United States v Lopez weakened the Gun-Free School Zone Act a bit to require prosecutors to prove a link between the gun in question and interstate commerce.
In theory it weakened it but in practice it did not. Merely creating a good yourself in your own state for your own personal non-commercial use is considered interstate commerce. See Supreme Court refusing to hear Kettler's conviction for buying a suppressor made in the same state (the NFA regulating suppressors is constitutional through the interstate commerce clause, and gun parts made completely in one state for consumption in that state are interstate commerce), and the many other convictions for home made guns. All firearms have interstate commerce legally even if there is no link from any practical/physical viewpoint. You could pull iron out of the ground underneath your house, refine and form it yourself and create your own machine shop purely from raw material in your state and then make a gun, completely bypassing any trade of a single molecule from another state and it would be interstate commerce. The requirement for a link is a meaningless gesture to ensure the writing of it is constitutionally accurate.
I'm loving reading through all of the sickening puff pieces that business/tech journalists put out about her and Theranos. It's funny to think back to 2015 and the hagiographical void still left in tech journo hearts after Steve Jobs died. https://www.inc.com/ilan-mochari/elizabeth-holmes-theranos-i... > How Elizabeth Holmes Became America's New Entrepreneurial Icon > She represents the part of entrepreneurship that…
Ironic that her board of directors-- one of the most praised aspects of Theranos-- probably hurt her when it came to going after her with criminal charges. These were some of the most well-connected people in the country, and making them look like fools did her no favors. Once it was clear this wouldn't go away quietly, I'd bet they pushed hard to ensure criminal prosecution. (which I think she deserved anyway.) Espe…
> Once it was clear this wouldn't go away quietly, I'd bet they pushed hard to ensure criminal prosecution. You're saying that Mattis, Cohen, etc had the ability to influence decisions within Trump's DoJ and exerted that ability in order to ensure that charges were filed against Holmes in 2018? If so, why do you think this?
Because it sounds like a much better story than what probably really happened.
> She only pauses in her work to run — seven miles a day. -- Laura Arrillaga-Andreessen, yes that Andreessen, writing in the New York Times Magazine about Visionary Tech Entrepreneurs with, um, no conflict of interest whatsoever I'm sure. Turns out Palantir's Alex Karp was also "harnessing goodness through technology." No idea how she missed Adam Neumann. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/10/12/t-magazine/el..…
A16z didn't invest in Theranos, did Marc personally invest or what is the conflict?
The article hypes five founders, one definitely was funded by A16Z, the others I think were not but I'm not sure.
I don't know anything about the Andreessens' personal investments but just as a general rule you might question the propriety of someone that close to the VC money using your storied newspaper to promote startup founders. I'm not going to hold up the NYT as some bastion of journalistic ethics, but still.
She'd want to get on with it; they're mostly fairly elderly. And the optics would be _awful_; no sensible president would do it in the first place.
> And the optics would be _awful_; no sensible president would do it in the first place. That's obviously no longer a constraint. The optics of pardoning Anthony Lewandowski (among many, many others) looked awful and he was still pardoned.
I suspect that was peak Ridiculous President Behaviour, tbh. Any future president that venal will take care to hide it a _little_ better.
And I think that was a little different; in that highly polarized environment it was possibly a little easier to sell corrupt pardons if they were of people on the president's 'team'; at least some of his supporters would put up with it on that basis. Holmes wouldn't qualify; she's just a generic wealthy criminal.
No one in the media seems to still question if cryptocurrencies are serious investment assets despite little actual proven utility beyond being a speculative investment asset.
I’d like to bet someone on this. If you or others are interested maybe we can refine a wager. :) I’m thinking that in 7 years there will be something built with blockchain tech (not cryptocurrency) that is used by 10M people? (I know you said cryptocurrencies but many people conflate the two and feel it’s all bogus..)
Anyone could win instantly by pointing out git. The hype is new, but not the concept.
Ironic that her board of directors-- one of the most praised aspects of Theranos-- probably hurt her when it came to going after her with criminal charges. These were some of the most well-connected people in the country, and making them look like fools did her no favors. Once it was clear this wouldn't go away quietly, I'd bet they pushed hard to ensure criminal prosecution. (which I think she deserved anyway.) Espe…
> Once it was clear this wouldn't go away quietly, I'd bet they pushed hard to ensure criminal prosecution. You're saying that Mattis, Cohen, etc had the ability to influence decisions within Trump's DoJ and exerted that ability in order to ensure that charges were filed against Holmes in 2018? If so, why do you think this?
You don't even have to influence. DoJ is naturally going to take interest when a huge startup that has the Secretary of Defense on the board goes belly up.
I'm loving reading through all of the sickening puff pieces that business/tech journalists put out about her and Theranos. It's funny to think back to 2015 and the hagiographical void still left in tech journo hearts after Steve Jobs died. https://www.inc.com/ilan-mochari/elizabeth-holmes-theranos-i... > How Elizabeth Holmes Became America's New Entrepreneurial Icon > She represents the part of entrepreneurship that…
> She only pauses in her work to run — seven miles a day. -- Laura Arrillaga-Andreessen, yes that Andreessen, writing in the New York Times Magazine about Visionary Tech Entrepreneurs with, um, no conflict of interest whatsoever I'm sure. Turns out Palantir's Alex Karp was also "harnessing goodness through technology." No idea how she missed Adam Neumann. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/10/12/t-magazine/el..…
I’d like to bet someone on this. If you or others are interested maybe we can refine a wager. :) I’m thinking that in 7 years there will be something built with blockchain tech (not cryptocurrency) that is used by 10M people? (I know you said cryptocurrencies but many people conflate the two and feel it’s all bogus..)
Anyone could win instantly by pointing out git. The hype is new, but not the concept.
Is git fueled by superfluous energy-wasting (=environment-destroying) "proof of work"?!?