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

141–150 of 320 posts

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

#141

Post by xtracto »

postscapes1 wrote: post #137

Is she not in jail right now? Also why in her right mind would she sign up to do this with Fielder? My brain hurts from this project.

Meh, from the documentaries I have seen and reading about her, to me it seems that she is hungry for attention. She will do whatever she vmcan to get attention, and she has succeeded once more with this documentary. She is also getting your money.

I dont understand why dont people stop beating that death horse. She is a scanner and fraudster. She defrauded a lot of people and is in jail for that. Move on. Let her rot in the obscurity in she belongs to

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

#142

Post by TheOtherHobbes »

tdb7893 wrote: post #94
xyzelement wrote: post #13

I have a distinctive memory about Theranos from business school - so circa 2013 a few years before it blew up. Some professor was going on and on about Holmes for being a young, female, founder. It stood out at the moment as weird because the praise was separate from success or outcomes or like brilliant science. It was all about the identity: gender and age. I wonder if the reason the scam went so far as it did beca…

The general scam of unrealistic promises then under-delivering is such a well worn trope that while gender surely played a part in it (as it is a big part of social perceptions in general) I hesitate to blame it here. I think for anyone who has been in tech for a while it doesn't take an imagination to picture a man doing pretty much the same thing

Gender etc provided a new vector.

The lack of awareness was the prof not realising corporate and upper class women are just as capable of being con artists with a dysfunctional grasp on reality as men are. (Other women are too, but they don't get the opportunities.)

It's an ironically sexist assumption.

Although at the same time men are less likely to face consequences - unless they defraud big-ticket investors without prior permission. Which was the true crime here, and the only one that matters at these levels.

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

#143

Post by embedding-shape »

twoodfin wrote: post #138
embedding-shape wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The basic idea was and is unworkable. To be fair, lots of "basic ideas" are unworkable until someone bangs their head against it enough times and suddenly it is workable. Sometimes the environment or available technology just have to change/improve/scale a tiny bit more for something to go from unworkable to workable. Still, what she did was obvious fraud straight up, not just "lets bang our head against this until…

One of the best examples of this: Streaming video. Literally a dream for decades, with billions of dollars spent on technology, marketing, infrastructure by huge incumbent players and startups alike. Netflix didn’t innovate much on any of these angles, they “just” had the right business plan at the right moment.

> One of the best examples of this: Streaming video.

"Robots" that can talk/write like humans is probably an even longer endeavor we just managed to make believable enough to fool other humans.

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

#145

Post by saimiam »

seabombs wrote: post #2

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

(from the trailer) Holmes' mouth reminds me of the Amazon logo. Not just the shape. Also the complete disconnect between the commonly held meaning of a smile and the entity which is currently using it.

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

#146

Post by tzury »

satvikpendem wrote: post #140
xyzelement wrote: post #13

I have a distinctive memory about Theranos from business school - so circa 2013 a few years before it blew up. Some professor was going on and on about Holmes for being a young, female, founder. It stood out at the moment as weird because the praise was separate from success or outcomes or like brilliant science. It was all about the identity: gender and age. I wonder if the reason the scam went so far as it did beca…

I just read this article about a Stephen Hawking biography that talks about how "Hawking’s overweening ambition and self-promotion, his repeated failure to acknowledge the work of others, his sexism and controlling behaviour were largely ignored because of his disability" so identity perception by the public does in fact contribute to how people think about their achievements. https://www.theguardian.com/books/2026/s…

I am reading a comment (1) by a person (2) who read an article on a newspaper website (3) discussing a book (4) written by someone about the life (5) of Stephen Hawking.

What I read !== Stephen Hawking.

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

#147

Post by giarc »

dwroberts wrote: post #36
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

If you read the article, you'll see that they do have someone else play her in the second half. But that's kind of by design...?

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

#148

Post by specialist »

mark_l_watson wrote: post #65

I watched a 90 second clip from this film earlier today: Holmes unblinking asking ‘Why would I deceive you…’ Really strange stuff. I have to admit that I watched the clip a second time.

My brother has to remember to blink. (Thyroid or something, he's cagey about sharing diag. I suspect Grave's Disease.)

His unflinching stare into the eyes of interogation, while telling obvious lies, got us out of lots of trouble.

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

#150

Post by atmavatar »

Arodex wrote: post #136
xyzelement wrote: post #13

I have a distinctive memory about Theranos from business school - so circa 2013 a few years before it blew up. Some professor was going on and on about Holmes for being a young, female, founder. It stood out at the moment as weird because the praise was separate from success or outcomes or like brilliant science. It was all about the identity: gender and age. I wonder if the reason the scam went so far as it did beca…

Weird to put together "female and young": females are discriminated against, but it is older people, not younger ones, that are discriminated too. This ain't Japan, were seniority is king. This is America, where you are in decline after 30.

Yet paradoxically, being old is nearly a requirement for political office.

Biden was the oldest president in history, and with his re-election, Trump will become the oldest president in history should he live out his term.

The average age of the 119th Congress overall is 59 years old, with the House averaging 57 and the Senate averaging 64. For comparison, the average age of the US as a whole is just under 39.

This is probably one of the largest reasons the country is in the state it's in: most of those in power won't live long enough to see the consequences of the policies they enact, so they don't give a damn.

Post reply on HN