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

881–890 of 1001 posts

Re: Elizabeth Holmes found guilty

#881

Post by notch656a »

batmansmk wrote: post #631
causality0 wrote: post #587

What's the takeaway from this other than "killing people by giving phony medical test results is just fine, but don't you dare anger the wealthy"?

As an american resident, I feel less safe being healed in USA after yesterday's judgement. Healthcare should not be just business. Food additives, sugar and the obesity crisis, a list of 1,300 chemicals used in cosmetics, the Vioxx scandal, the opioids crisis and more generally the drug situation, the cost of healthcare, tanking life expectancy... The list is long on why "healthcare is just business" is not working.

If healthcare a business, they should be allowed to operate one. Deregulate, eliminate licensing for healthcare professionals. Eliminate FDA, DEA, medical board, etc. Fuck needing a prescription for antibiotics when I can take a strep test at home. I'm totally good with making healthcare a business so I can finally have accessible affordable healthcare and just straight up import drugs from India or whatever for 1/100th the cost.

Course if government wants to keep their crusty paws in it and decides it actually isn't just a business, they should take some cues from countries with much lower GDP overhead. The half-assed system we have is the worst of both worlds.

Re: Elizabeth Holmes found guilty

#882

Post by [deleted] »

troyvit wrote: post #877
bb101 wrote: post #786

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do feel sorry for her in a way. She was riding a treadmill of expectations. Started off slowly, probably thinking "yeah, we can do this" and by the time the treadmill was moving at light speed, it was too late to get off. Even TED has removed her talk from YouTube. What responsibility do the media bear when their shallow hype turns out to be false and damaging to all parties?

I feel bad for her too. She messed up, and probably did it intentionally too. That's messed up, but how much physical harm did people suffer? 60 years of prison time's worth? Near as I can tell a bunch of investors lost some money. Are they on the street now, begging for dinner? Kinda doubt it. Maybe there's a more fitting punishment.

[deleted]

Re: Elizabeth Holmes found guilty

#883

Post by WalterBright »

bb101 wrote: post #786
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…

I do feel sorry for her in a way. She was riding a treadmill of expectations. Started off slowly, probably thinking "yeah, we can do this" and by the time the treadmill was moving at light speed, it was too late to get off. Even TED has removed her talk from YouTube. What responsibility do the media bear when their shallow hype turns out to be false and damaging to all parties?

Her story arc is much like Bernie Madoff's. He, too, only really hurt wealthy investors. But did anyone feel bad for him?

Re: Elizabeth Holmes found guilty

#884

Post by vkou »

troyvit wrote: post #877
bb101 wrote: post #786

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do feel sorry for her in a way. She was riding a treadmill of expectations. Started off slowly, probably thinking "yeah, we can do this" and by the time the treadmill was moving at light speed, it was too late to get off. Even TED has removed her talk from YouTube. What responsibility do the media bear when their shallow hype turns out to be false and damaging to all parties?

I feel bad for her too. She messed up, and probably did it intentionally too. That's messed up, but how much physical harm did people suffer? 60 years of prison time's worth? Near as I can tell a bunch of investors lost some money. Are they on the street now, begging for dinner? Kinda doubt it. Maybe there's a more fitting punishment.

It's pretty fitting, given how large the reward for pulling the fraud off was.

There are, of course, a lot of people walking free who have done far worse things. (The Sacklers, for instance, should all be subject to a combination of prison and utter financial ruin. If the world were just, most of them should be living on the street, right now. Instead, they are making quaint arguments about how a third of their drug wealth is fair recompense, and how their plundered offshore billions should be protected from bankruptcy.)

Re: Elizabeth Holmes found guilty

#885

Post by WalterBright »

JohnJamesRambo wrote: post #753
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…

Gell-Man Amnesia Effect in full effect. Will we remember when we read the next PR piece/pump and dump disguised as journalism?

I got conned by pump and dump stock scam. The perpetrators got sentenced to 5 years. I was amazed to get a restitution check in the mail.

I hope to be smarter next time.

Re: Elizabeth Holmes found guilty

#886

Post by ineedasername »

leroy_masochist wrote: post #875
ineedasername wrote: post #839

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If so, why do you think this? Is it not clear that I'm speculating? And is speculating that people with government connections might use them in this situation? After all, that's part of why they were on the board in the first place. Did they actually use that influence? I don't know. But I think it's a reasonable bit of speculation. Influential people using their influence when they're publicly embarrassed shouldn't…

Got it, so your argument is basically an abstract appeal to cynicism. Not sure why you'd think it's "a reasonable bit of speculation" to baselessly posit that Mattis decided to obstruct justice by reaching out to a regional prosecutor in order to influence the government's decision to prosecute a criminal case.

Got it, so you're argument is basically that any speculation on an issue is unreasonable. I'm sure you never speculate on anything.

It's also not obstruction of justice to ask the DOJ to look into an issue. If a threat was involved in that request then sure-- that's obstruction.

Re: Elizabeth Holmes found guilty

#887

Post by notch656a »

codeflo wrote: post #614
afterburner wrote: post #596

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did you know they only ever got Al Capone on tax evasion? Would you draw a similar conclusion in that case, or maybe did the effort put into pinning Capone on tax evasion have more to do with how he was running a murderous criminal organization for many years?

Isn’t Al Capone’s tax evasion conviction usually mentioned as a bit of a joke? I don’t see how anyone can cite it as an example of the system working perfectly fine . Ignoring for a moment that this was in a very different era, to me, there are only two possible conclusions from this: (a) The conviction was legitimate. This means that if only he had been a bit more thorough about laundering his money, he’d have gotte…

(b) is far more terrifying. I'd rather 1000 murderers get away than a single case of a prosecutor have that kind of discretionary power to fuck over essentially anyone just for selective enforcement. The law should be applied equally.

Re: Elizabeth Holmes found guilty

#888

Post by [deleted] »

coldtea wrote: post #632
afterburner wrote: post #596

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did you know they only ever got Al Capone on tax evasion? Would you draw a similar conclusion in that case, or maybe did the effort put into pinning Capone on tax evasion have more to do with how he was running a murderous criminal organization for many years?

> Did you know they only ever got Al Capone on tax evasion? Would you draw a similar conclusion in that case Yeah. Gangster? Police doesn't care or is on the payroll. The IRS however will get you -- it will only let the very rich off.

[deleted]

Re: Elizabeth Holmes found guilty

#889

Post by morelisp »

Grustaf wrote: post #812
biztos wrote: post #805

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.…

Hyping founders you _didn't_ invest in is sort of the opposite of nepotism though.

The Arrillaga family fortune goes up any time the value of "SV" as a brand (or concrete asset) goes up. It's a nice trick to not have a formal COI while still closely and actively managing your interests.

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

Re: Elizabeth Holmes found guilty

#890

Post by WalterBright »

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…

The more I think about it, the more parallels with Bernie Madoff!
Post reply on HN