201–210 of 320 posts
Love everything Nathan Fielder does. The trailer is awesome. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=GGJSRFWALTI
I imagine this movie will be pretty successful as well and talked about a good bit on social media, between this and The Curse Nathan probably has formed a pretty good relationship with A24, I hope they continue to fund his antics for a while. The Rehearsal was some of the best television ever and I'd love to see more projects of that caliber.
The HN headline here now explains it. My mind is actually a bit blown. Such proof that all you need to rehabilitate yourself is money. It started last year with sympathetic profiles in NYT of Holmes and her husband.
I suppose at this point it's just a matter of time before she (a) founds a new company or (b) runs for elected office. I leave it to other commenters to think up options for (c) and (d).
Either way...a fool and their money are soon parted. And I guess Holmes is the one to part more fools from their money.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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
And the general scam of an attractive young woman speaking to a bunch of elderly men (realy, look up the early investors) and somehow convincing them to part with thier money is as old as time. Heck, Henry kissinger was on her board.
There was some major tension in the trailer - I can't believe that's actually Elizabeth Holmes, but seeing her I can see how she managed to win over so many - she is very intense.
My favorite quote from the article: > So he calls Amanda Seyfried, who sits and watches the scene we’ve just seen of Holmes sitting and watching Seyfried portray her. This is so very Nathan Fielder. Perfect encapsulation of his unique brand of humor. Seyfried portrays Holmes, giving her interpretation of Holmes. Holmes watches the portrayal, giving her interpretation of Seyfried's interpretation. Seyfried watches Hol…
The precision required underneath the surface to plan and execute what seems like such a spastic, increasingly desperate clusterfuck involving so many real people can only be achieved by the exact methods put on display. Endless iteration and exploration until every serious edge case is considered and accounted for. Nathan would have made a great engineer.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Of all the ways Theranos was a scam, the gender thing was pretty much the last. She was wealthy, stacked the board with all the wrong sorts of people but the right sorts of people for corrupt contracts.
Hard disagree. It wasn't the only thing, but it was so clear that all the fawning, uncritical media coverage and general buzz really "wanted a female Steve Jobs". And all the ways that Holmes emulated Jobs in style but not substance went along with that. I'll give you another example that was about the same time, with much lower stakes, but it always really annoyed me. An entrepreneur, Grace Choi, launched the "Mink…
Even if you're right, so what? Nobody signed over millions in investment on that basis. Nobody signed contracts on that basis.
They signed contracts on the basis of the influence network and the prior investment money, i.e. the connections that Holmes had.
There are not a ton of women founders, but none of them have had the media coverage, nor the easy money that Holmes raised.
TL;DR Was Holmes unique for being a woman? Or was she actually unique because she had massive connections with tons of influence, and that influence got her media coverage rather than being a woman?
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'. The scam was sold on her gender ("successful female entrepreneur"), so unfortunately it's going to be part of the heuristic. Male-led scams aren't sold on the gender of the scammer; gender is completely ignored (No one describes those as "a successful male entrepreneur"). Unfort…
No, that's just sexism backfilling which things to discriminate against. She was sold as a successful Stanford dropout, a genius who had a simple idea and assembled a very powerful group of people to push the idea and a ton of funding. Nobody is saying we shouldn't trust Stanford dropouts anymore.
Is, uh, "sexism" in the room with us now?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What?
Elon's DOGE is responsible for over 100k deaths. Some died a horrible death with medical devices stuck in them because there was no one to remove them after all funding was instantly cut. One of the most inhumane and disgusting acts in history.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, that's just sexism backfilling which things to discriminate against. She was sold as a successful Stanford dropout, a genius who had a simple idea and assembled a very powerful group of people to push the idea and a ton of funding. Nobody is saying we shouldn't trust Stanford dropouts anymore.
> She was sold as a successful Stanford dropout Is, uh, "sexism" in the room with us now?
Look at this entire thread: Holmes was widely acknowledged to have a board that got her contracts that she should never have gotten. She got her investment money because of family connections.
Yet this entire thread is all about "oh but she was a woman and woman have it easy" despite no other women to point at all.
The lack of critical thinking is just astounding, usually HN is far more sharp.