Live data from Hacker News

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

variety.com

51–60 of 320 posts

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

#51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I regret engaging, comment removed.

EDIT: luckily I quoted the things I was replying to, because the above poster drastically edited his/her post, just resorting finally to namecalling. > Even this “trans women in sports” issue you brought up for no reason is deeply rooted misogyny in action. As soon as someone becomes a woman they are a second-class citizen. Claiming this does not make it so. I said nothing misogynistic. You can't just claim this any…

[deleted]

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

#52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Capitalists and workers?

Capitalists are the ones who allocate - and risk - money to attempt to solve problems like this.

Yeah and we wish they would stop. Because solutions like this are something the system optimizes for.

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

#53
Holmes seems to have the Harvard Business (MBA) mindset: science, R&D, engineering are just results to squeeze out of recalcitrant practitioners. Any failure in those domains is evidence only of the scientists' or engineers' refusal to align themselves with the Vision.

Despite not even finishing undergrad, she adopted this persona so naturally, including the black turtleneck and a Zuck-esque vocal inflection, that due diligence apparently defenestrated itself. Phyllis Gardner is the unsung hero who tried to warn the world, but the MBA mass-delusion was too strong.

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

#55
post #4

> But the more Holmes talks to Fielder, the more he teases out her unhinged rationale, which is: The device works fine! We just had to figure out that pesky chemistry stuff! The strange thing is that Holmes has such a corporate mindset that she treats the chemistry stuff…that hadn’t been invented yet…as just another glitchy small problem that could easily be solved The difference between science and engineering right…

And yet somehow what she did still isn't as bad as what every private equity form on Wall Street gets away with daily.

There's no excuse for defrauding investors, but at least the "aim" was to produce a product that, if it actually had worked, would have been medically revolutionary. I don't even believe that she went in on scam from the start, she must have at least genuinely believed, no matter how nonchalant, that there was going to be a product - otherwise how would she possibly expect to get away with it?

Blackrock, Citadel, KKR etc - all they do is buy up actual businesses that provide actual products and services, by using the most predatory and immoral "leveraged buyout" technique and then stripping its assets and leasing them back like some demented parasitic worm

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

#57

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.

The point is that anything subject to hype is also at a greater risk of being a scam. If we were desperate for red-headed founders then the risk of any given red-head riding the wave of hype rather than substance is higher than at baseline. That's the point being made. Your comment about male led misses it because there's currently no hype about male led. Though I can see it coming back.

That’s only true in the public Zeitgeist, there is a huge preference among portions of the workforce for male leadership stated or unstated. This is not a good thing. I literally worked with a guy who was about to quit because a woman would boss him around and she was about 10,000 times as qualified as he was

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

#58
post #4

> But the more Holmes talks to Fielder, the more he teases out her unhinged rationale, which is: The device works fine! We just had to figure out that pesky chemistry stuff! The strange thing is that Holmes has such a corporate mindset that she treats the chemistry stuff…that hadn’t been invented yet…as just another glitchy small problem that could easily be solved The difference between science and engineering right…

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…

I don't want to necessarily claim that Altman is worse than Holmes, but I don't think the rank order is entirely clear either.

An AI CEO was absolutely Holmes' calling. You can only imagine.

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

#59
post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Capitalists are the ones who allocate - and risk - money to attempt to solve problems like this.

Yeah and we wish they would stop. Because solutions like this are something the system optimizes for.

Then we wouldn't have anything that's hard to create and/or requires risk.

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

#60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Scamming as a male can actually improve your reputation. Donald Trump is currently the president of the united states despite years of ripping people off. If Bernie Madoff could run as a republican senator, I'd given him decent odds to win.

> If Bernie Madoff could run as a republican senator, I'd given him decent odds to win. And yet somehow he - a man - is in jail. A jail built by men, condemned by a justice system designed by men to lock bad men up.

Because Madoff scammed rich people. You can get away with a lot if you scam the poor. Not so much when you target the wealthy.
Post reply on HN