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

911–920 of 1001 posts

Re: Elizabeth Holmes found guilty

#911

Post by giantrobot »

druadh wrote: post #868
gameswithgo wrote: post #785

I wonder what parallels we can draw between Holmes and her blood testing, with Elon and full self driving. I suppose Elon has covered his bases by saying it is still a work in progress while charging for it, but he has also been saying it will be ready in about a year or two since 2016. I think the FSD research Tesla is doing is interesting, but man I would rather all of that money gone into a carbon fiber roof or so…

The progress made on full self driving (FSD) has been quite transparent, at least compared to Theranos. I worked at Tesla from 2017 - 2019 and the quality of Enhanced Autopilot probably quadrupled in the that small amount of time. I left before being able to experience the progress made on FSD, unfortunately. I agree that Elon's timeline's are absolute BS. My perspective on his timelines are that they are almost mean…

> For example, something that most industry folks would think will take 20-30 years (or is feasibly impossible ie. reusable rockets), Elon gives a 5 year timeline and his team actually gets it done in 10 -- still less time than anyone thought possible.

No one realistically thought reusable rockets were impossible or even infeasible. Reusable rockets trade lift capacity for reusability. A single-use Falcon 9 lifts more than a reusable one because it can use all the fuel in the first stage for lift saving nothing for landing. Keep in mind the Space Shuttle (a reusable rocket) had been flying for thirty years before Space X landed a Falcon 9.

Space X has done cool things but they are iterative developments. Tesla didn't invent electric cars or do something impossible, they iterated on existing technologies. They, like Space X, have happily and readily accepted every government subsidy dollar they're remotely qualified to receive. All while Musk is bitching about paying taxes.

Re: Elizabeth Holmes found guilty

#912

Post by azth »

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.

> but how much physical harm did people suffer

Is physical harm the only harm that matters?

> Are they on the street now, begging for dinner?

That's not how justice works.

Re: Elizabeth Holmes found guilty

#913

Post by parineum »

Hnrobert42 wrote: post #665
bambax wrote: post #662

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hate Holmes as much as anyone [0], but life in prison (65 years when you're 37 = out when you're 102) sounds unreasonably harsh. She's not convicted of actually, physically harming anyone, esp. patients (which doesn't mean she didn't -- but she wasn't found guilty of that); she's convicted of lying to investors. That's obviously bad, and should carry some form of punishment. Maybe 5 years? But life?? That's insane.…

5 years?! People can get that much for stealing a car or jewelry. She stole tens of millions! Not only that, she did it through fraud. It’s not like you can just build a higher fence. For the system to work, it must be free of fraud.

> Grand Theft

> Grand theft includes theft of property with a value of more than $950 or theft of a firearm (any value). The penalty for stealing a firearm is a felony, punishable by a state prison term of 16 months, two years, or three years. In all other cases, grand theft is a wobbler and can be charged as a misdemeanor or felony. A misdemeanor sentence results in up to one year in jail and a felony sentence results in prison time of 16 months, two years, or three years. (Cal. Penal Code §§ 487, 490.2 (2020).)

You actually can't get that much time for stealing a car or jewelry. What gives a criminal that much time is that "theft" is often actually "robbery", which involves the use of coercive violence. Violence is generally punished much more harshly.

> California Penal Code 211 PC defines the crime of robbery as “the felonious taking of personal property in the possession of another, from his person or immediate presence, and against his will, accomplished by means of force or fear.” Robbery is a felony punishable by up to 9 years in state prison.

> First-degree robbery includes robbery of

> any driver or passenger on a bus, taxi, streetcar, subway, cable car, etc., any person in an inhabited structure, or any person who has just used an ATM and is still in the vicinity of the ATM.4

> First-degree robbery leads to a California state prison sentence of between three (3) and nine (9) years.5

Re: Elizabeth Holmes found guilty

#914

Post by 1vuio0pswjnm7 »

1vuio0pswjnm7 wrote: post #568
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 a patient does not expect for their blood test results to be completely wrong." The patient's state of mind, e.g., their expectations, is not an element of wire fraud. Only Holmes' state of mind is relevant; specifically, her intent.

"As a general rule, the crime is done when the scheme is hatched and an attendant mailing or interstate phone call or email has occurred. Thus, the statutes are said to condemn a scheme to defraud regardless of its success.34 It is not uncommon for the courts to declare that to demonstrate a scheme to defraud the government needs to show that the defendants communications were reasonably calculated to deceive persons of ordinary prudence and comprehension.35 Even a casual reading, however, might suggest that the statutes also cover a scheme specifically designed to deceive a nave victim.36 Nevertheless, the courts have long acknowledged the possibility of a puffing defense, and there may be some question whether the statutes reach those schemes designed to deceive the gullible though they could not ensnare the reasonably prudent.37 In any event, the question may be more clearly presented in the context of the defendants intent and the materiality of the deception.38"

https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/R41930.pdf

"In any event, the question may be more clearly presented in the context of the defendant's intent and the materiality of the deception."

Whether a patient expected that results might be inaccurate, or even whether a "reasonably prudent" person would have expected results might be inaccurate, is not necessarily a defence to wire fraud. Even if such a defence were asserted, the focus would still be on Holmes, her conduct and her intent, not the patient.

Re: Elizabeth Holmes found guilty

#915

Post by smarks »

WalterBright wrote: post #885
JohnJamesRambo wrote: post #753

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Wow, that is amazing! What portion of your investment was returned? You don't have to say the actual amounts if you don't want, but I'm curious about whether you got 1/10, 1/2, or all of your investment back.

Re: Elizabeth Holmes found guilty

#916

Post by relaunched »

Holmes is a member of the uber-elite, upper .01%. Prof Gardner, in this article - https://www.mercurynews.com/2019/06/03/she-saw-through-eliza... refers to Theranos as raising friends and family style funding. I guess her friends and family, given the circles she travels in, have a lot more money than most of ours.

I've written about this a bit, but Elizabeth Holmes comes from 2 dynastic families. On one side, the Holmes family, whose name is directly tied to medicine / hospitals / clinics across Ohio. On the same side, a little bit farther up, is the Fleischmann family. Those yeast packets and jars that are in your cupboard...yes, that Fleischmann.

Re: Elizabeth Holmes found guilty

#917

Post by approxim8ion »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #471
approxim8ion wrote: post #468

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Hey, maybe it factored into the decision to name them, although it's unlikely.

From what I understand, the reasons for picking nicknames are quite random. As another commenter mentioned, people named Sunil or Sanjeev go by Sunny sometimes, although other times it is just picked out of the blue, like with Bollywood actor Sunny Deol, whose real name is Ajay. His brother Vijay uses the screen name Bobby, by the way. Random.

Re: Elizabeth Holmes found guilty

#918

Post by approxim8ion »

bakul wrote: post #781
approxim8ion wrote: post #468

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

More commonly Shani is the harbinger of bad luck & retribution, which is why you’ll rarely see any Indian origin person named Shani. In a Hindu mythology Shani is the elder brother of Yama, the lord of death & justice. Sometime people named Sunil, such as the cricketer Sunil Gavaskar, use Sunny as a nickname.

Thanks for the follow-up!

Re: Elizabeth Holmes found guilty

#919

Post by baby »

evancoop wrote: post #715

The relevant detail, in my mind, is not whether Holmes deserves punishment, or even how much. The relevant detail is how the judge ultimately sentences Holmes, and more importantly, on what basis the judge selects the upper or lower range of possible sentencing outcomes. Considering that BS, stretching of capabilities, and so on are commonplace in the startup world, the point isn't whether Holmes crossed the line (sh…

> And the hard story: "Here's what might be relevant for future founders."

Honestly, these founders are crap. I met a lot of different types of founders, there are a lot of snake oil sellers out there, and then there are the good ones. I'm willing to bet that nothing good came out of the snake oil sellers.

Re: Elizabeth Holmes found guilty

#920

Post by MartinCron »

himinlomax wrote: post #790
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…

> "Salesforce will transform your business" and someone says it doesn't then they have to prove. You'd have to prove that Salesforce didn't believe they could transform your business, not that they didn't do the transformation.

Claims like "transform your business" or "best pizza in town" are generally considered non-specific puffery and aren't subject to fraud or false advertising enforcements.

Something like "perform n lab tests with a single drop of blood" is a very specific claim.

Post reply on HN