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

'You Can See Everything' Review: Nathan Fielder's Doc About Elizabeth Holmes

variety.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 320 posts

Re: 'You Can See Everything' Review: Nathan Fielder's Doc About Elizabeth Holmes

#31

Post by rcxdude »

owebmaster wrote: post #19
dragochat wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

she'd be the perfect CEO of a BigAI corpo - as opposed to betting on humans randomly discovering new chemistry in predictable ammount of time, betting on neural networks offering a brute-force way to (super)human congnition is actualy "saner" - I mean, we know from _evolution_ that in a universe with out _physics_ brute forcing the problem of building intelligence with neural-network like architecture "very likely wo…

If Sam Altman was actually named Elizabeth Altman the OpenAI CEO would be in jail.

There are many issues with OpenAI but the two situations are pretty significantly different.

Re: 'You Can See Everything' Review: Nathan Fielder's Doc About Elizabeth Holmes

#33

Post by tmtvl »

micromacrofoot wrote: post #27
FranzFerdiNaN wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Plenty of male-led businesses also turned out to be scams, and yet no one goes 'that guy looks sharp, but he is male so seems suspicious'. Which only proofs how deep sexism is rooted.

[flagged]

Thing is, SBF, Tate, and Paul aren't old (well, depends on your frame of reference I suppose); so even discriminating on age wouldn't help you much.

Re: 'You Can See Everything' Review: Nathan Fielder's Doc About Elizabeth Holmes

#34

Post by aa-jv »

sschueller wrote: post #12
jiaosdjf wrote: post #7

I watched the entire trailer fully believing that Nathan Fielder had managed to find the most unhinged uncanny look-alike actress to play Elizabeth Holmes. This trailer was so good that I would have been fully prepared to watch a 2 hour dramatised mockumentary about Theranos. Finding out that this was really Elizabeth Holmes was a huge shock

Yet people who met her were stupid enough to think she is some kind of genius and gave her millions of dollars. Sometimes I think if Charles Manson started a startup instead of killing people he would have had millions in investments and be praised as some sort of wunder kind...

>were stupid enough to think she is some kind of genius and gave her millions of dollars.

The tech industry is rife with such suckers. We wouldn't have the wealth we have without them.

Re: 'You Can See Everything' Review: Nathan Fielder's Doc About Elizabeth Holmes

#35

Post by embedding-shape »

seabombs wrote: post #2

Love everything Nathan Fielder does. The trailer is awesome. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=GGJSRFWALTI

What an incredible trailer. So simple but so communicative and almost gave me goosebumps, very well made.

Seeing her like that gave me flashbacks to Mark Zuckerberg before he seemingly trained away that empty stare he and others share.

Re: 'You Can See Everything' Review: Nathan Fielder's Doc About Elizabeth Holmes

#36

Post by dwroberts »

jiaosdjf wrote: post #7

I watched the entire trailer fully believing that Nathan Fielder had managed to find the most unhinged uncanny look-alike actress to play Elizabeth Holmes. This trailer was so good that I would have been fully prepared to watch a 2 hour dramatised mockumentary about Theranos. Finding out that this was really Elizabeth Holmes was a huge shock

Although I’m fully expecting actor shenanigans in the full documentary, I think the section in the trailer might actually be her for real

Re: 'You Can See Everything' Review: Nathan Fielder's Doc About Elizabeth Holmes

#37

Post by derektank »

owebmaster wrote: post #19
dragochat wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

she'd be the perfect CEO of a BigAI corpo - as opposed to betting on humans randomly discovering new chemistry in predictable ammount of time, betting on neural networks offering a brute-force way to (super)human congnition is actualy "saner" - I mean, we know from _evolution_ that in a universe with out _physics_ brute forcing the problem of building intelligence with neural-network like architecture "very likely wo…

If Sam Altman was actually named Elizabeth Altman the OpenAI CEO would be in jail.

People seem to forget that Sunny Balwani also went to prison over the Theranos fraud.

Re: 'You Can See Everything' Review: Nathan Fielder's Doc About Elizabeth Holmes

#38

Post by philipallstar »

FranzFerdiNaN wrote: post #18
glimshe wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It sure did. And it backfired in a way that could make future female innovators guilty by association. I can see investors asking themselves "That girl looks sharp, but is she another Elizabeth Holmes?"

Plenty of male-led businesses also turned out to be scams, and yet no one goes 'that guy looks sharp, but he is male so seems suspicious'. Which only proofs how deep sexism is rooted.

> Which only proofs how deep sexism is rooted.

Only if you're determined to look for it.

No one promotes companies, or gives special grants, or runs special funding groups, or special networking breakfasts, for men. It's only for women. Women are currently viewed as intrinsically a good thing to run a company, and it's a problem if your company has fewer than 50% women. It's all about identity and not competence. She rode that wave.

Men ride other waves, but specifically not that one. Unless you count trans women in sports. Or Tim Walz.

Re: 'You Can See Everything' Review: Nathan Fielder's Doc About Elizabeth Holmes

#39

Post by JuniperMesos »

FranzFerdiNaN wrote: post #18
glimshe wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It sure did. And it backfired in a way that could make future female innovators guilty by association. I can see investors asking themselves "That girl looks sharp, but is she another Elizabeth Holmes?"

Plenty of male-led businesses also turned out to be scams, and yet no one goes 'that guy looks sharp, but he is male so seems suspicious'. Which only proofs how deep sexism is rooted.

No one thinks that the number of males participating in business is too low, and that it is socially-beneficial and morally-important to promote male-run businesses.

Re: 'You Can See Everything' Review: Nathan Fielder's Doc About Elizabeth Holmes

#40

Post by OroPla »

FranzFerdiNaN wrote: post #18
glimshe wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It sure did. And it backfired in a way that could make future female innovators guilty by association. I can see investors asking themselves "That girl looks sharp, but is she another Elizabeth Holmes?"

Plenty of male-led businesses also turned out to be scams, and yet no one goes 'that guy looks sharp, but he is male so seems suspicious'. Which only proofs how deep sexism is rooted.

It's just pattern recognition at work. None of the male-led scams have "being male" as a talking point trying to sell the scam, so it's about as notable as a scam founder wearing black shoes.

But now "female led" has entered the conversation as something to recognize a scam by. Whenever it comes up again this memory will lit up and make people wary.

Post reply on HN