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

821–830 of 1001 posts

Re: Elizabeth Holmes found guilty

#821

Post by tristor »

ineedasername wrote: post #792

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…

> Henry Kissinger etc. would attach themselves to it without compelling evidence

An endorsement from Henry Kissinger is hardly an endorsement. There were far more prominent and well-regarded VCs attached to Theranos to support your point, however, which I think is well-founded.

Re: Elizabeth Holmes found guilty

#823

Post by mywittyname »

anthony_romeo wrote: post #818
biztos wrote: post #789

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 think you ought to actually explain the conflict of interest. I'm trying to find a clear connection between Theranos and Andreessen-related investments. I can't find evidence of an actual investment in Theranos. I'm not trying to dismiss you -- your theory[^1] could very well be totally right and there truly was a conflict [my duck-duck-go-ing skills only go so far]. And yeah, perhaps a person married to a wealthy…

I'm sure the author has no business relationship at all with Theranos and merely knows her socially.

Plausible deniability is useful in this kind of situation.

Re: Elizabeth Holmes found guilty

#824

Post by CRConrad »

engineeringwoke wrote: post #779
lbriner wrote: post #746

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The definition of fraud is to make false representation for "gain". In many cases, lying is not automatically fraud. The burden of proof is also on the prosecution so if you claim, "Salesforce will transform your business" and someone says it doesn't then they have to prove. 1) A reasonable person would understand the statement as fact rather than hyperbole 2) You have objectively not been transformed in your busines…

It's not a grey area. It's simply not enforced. If you're an investor and you find out that the co-founders gave you bad numbers to juice the next round (this is common to the extent that I have personally seen it multiple times), you have no incentive to get the law involved. You would lose your entire investment, instead of just some of it. And oftentimes, the extra juice gives them enough runway to make things wor…

> If you're an investor and you find out that the co-founders gave you bad numbers to juice the next round [...] you have no incentive to get the law involved. You would lose your entire investment, instead of just some of it.

> And oftentimes, the extra juice gives them enough runway to make things work.

Above all, it gives you [1] time: To cash out that investment. Sell it to some later bigger sucker who doesn't already know or suspect what you know or suspect, maybe even at some more modest profit -- not making any loss at all! -- in stead of the super-jackpot you'd been hoping for if it were a "unicorn".

Early investors who start to smell a rat don't only lack an incentive to raise the alarm, they have a positive incentive to keep the lid on the story.

___

[1]: The editorial "you", the hypothetical early(ish) investor.

Re: Elizabeth Holmes found guilty

#825

Post by cormacrelf »

anthony_romeo wrote: post #818
biztos wrote: post #789

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 think you ought to actually explain the conflict of interest. I'm trying to find a clear connection between Theranos and Andreessen-related investments. I can't find evidence of an actual investment in Theranos. I'm not trying to dismiss you -- your theory[^1] could very well be totally right and there truly was a conflict [my duck-duck-go-ing skills only go so far]. And yeah, perhaps a person married to a wealthy…

They said:

> writing in the New York Times Magazine about Visionary Tech Entrepreneurs with, um, no conflict of interest whatsoever I'm sure.

The only assertion is that she was married to a Visionary Tech Entrepreneur and doing puff pieces for Visionary Tech Entrepreneurs. Like seeing an article by Michelle Obama about how democratic politicians these days are great. Nothing deeper than that I think. It was an eye roll in text form.

It’s not an entirely pointless exercise, though, because people should know how powerful figures are related, and why they are motivated to do what they do. Journalists and billionaires are regular people who when exposed to a spouse’s daily ideas and reactions will soon bend in their direction. We should expect this from Laura. And we should be better equipped to dismiss it, because she was wrong.

Re: Elizabeth Holmes found guilty

#826

Post by __coaxialcabal »

ferdowsi wrote: post #737

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…

A hagiography (/ˌhæɡiˈɒɡrəfi/; from Ancient Greek ἅγιος, hagios 'holy', and -γραφία, -graphia 'writing') or vita (from Latin vita, life, which begins the title of most medieval biographies) is a biography of a saint or an ecclesiastical leader, as well as by extension, an adulatory and idealized biography of a founder, saint, monk, nun or icon in any of the world's religions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hagiography

Re: Elizabeth Holmes found guilty

#827

Post by anthony_romeo »

mywittyname wrote: post #823
anthony_romeo wrote: post #818

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you ought to actually explain the conflict of interest. I'm trying to find a clear connection between Theranos and Andreessen-related investments. I can't find evidence of an actual investment in Theranos. I'm not trying to dismiss you -- your theory[^1] could very well be totally right and there truly was a conflict [my duck-duck-go-ing skills only go so far]. And yeah, perhaps a person married to a wealthy…

I'm sure the author has no business relationship at all with Theranos and merely knows her socially . Plausible deniability is useful in this kind of situation.

My main point from above:

> I do get frustrated seeing these sorts of vague cynical quips levying *specific* accusations based more upon a gut plausibility of a scenario rather than a clear outline of information.

Re: Elizabeth Holmes found guilty

#828

Post by anthony_romeo »

cormacrelf wrote: post #825
anthony_romeo wrote: post #818

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you ought to actually explain the conflict of interest. I'm trying to find a clear connection between Theranos and Andreessen-related investments. I can't find evidence of an actual investment in Theranos. I'm not trying to dismiss you -- your theory[^1] could very well be totally right and there truly was a conflict [my duck-duck-go-ing skills only go so far]. And yeah, perhaps a person married to a wealthy…

They said: > writing in the New York Times Magazine about Visionary Tech Entrepreneurs with, um, no conflict of interest whatsoever I'm sure. The only assertion is that she was married to a Visionary Tech Entrepreneur and doing puff pieces for Visionary Tech Entrepreneurs. Like seeing an article by Michelle Obama about how democratic politicians these days are great. Nothing deeper than that I think. It was an eye ro…

My main point from above:

> I do get frustrated seeing these sorts of vague cynical quips levying *specific* accusations based more upon a gut plausibility of a scenario rather than a clear outline of information.

Re: Elizabeth Holmes found guilty

#829

Post by AlbertCory »

anthony_romeo wrote: post #818
biztos wrote: post #789

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 think you ought to actually explain the conflict of interest. I'm trying to find a clear connection between Theranos and Andreessen-related investments. I can't find evidence of an actual investment in Theranos. I'm not trying to dismiss you -- your theory[^1] could very well be totally right and there truly was a conflict [my duck-duck-go-ing skills only go so far]. And yeah, perhaps a person married to a wealthy…

I don't think there's a literal "conflict of interest" but there's definitely a "protect your friends" thing going on.

Laura is from the rich Stanford/Menlo Park VC/Palo Alto crowd, and that's Holmes' base of support as well.

Re: Elizabeth Holmes found guilty

#830

Post by anthony_romeo »

AlbertCory wrote: post #829
anthony_romeo wrote: post #818

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you ought to actually explain the conflict of interest. I'm trying to find a clear connection between Theranos and Andreessen-related investments. I can't find evidence of an actual investment in Theranos. I'm not trying to dismiss you -- your theory[^1] could very well be totally right and there truly was a conflict [my duck-duck-go-ing skills only go so far]. And yeah, perhaps a person married to a wealthy…

I don't think there's a literal "conflict of interest" but there's definitely a "protect your friends" thing going on. Laura is from the rich Stanford/Menlo Park VC/Palo Alto crowd, and that's Holmes' base of support as well.

My main point from above:

> I do get frustrated seeing these sorts of vague cynical quips levying *specific* accusations based more upon a gut plausibility of a scenario rather than a clear outline of information.

Post reply on HN