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

211–220 of 320 posts

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

#211

Post by shimman »

epihelix wrote: post #58
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…

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.

I think we can say Altman is worse, his products lead to actual deaths of people just like Holmes. Altman caused children to commit suicide so I think that's worse. Altman will likely be seeing the inside of a prison cell by 2030. The public wants blood and it's either Altman or Zuckerberg.

The politics are too good not too.

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

#212

Post by shimman »

cowsandmilk wrote: post #182
jiaosdjf wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

She gave people medical test results that were incorrect. Say what you want about PE, the medical diagnostics firms they own provide accurate test results to patients.

We have an entire insurance industry that makes money denying care to Americans while they die, or are those okay deaths since it's done under the confines of shareholder value?

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

#213

Post by dekhn »

sschueller wrote: post #185
upupupandaway wrote: post #181

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.

Do you have reliable citations for this claim rather than general hand-waving?

It felt like the whole news cycle about the deaths was one where nobody critically examined the claim.

I am looking for real data, not claims. If you link articles without real and unambiguous data, it's not helping.

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

#215

Post by DarmokTanagra »

upupupandaway wrote: post #186
DarmokTanagra wrote: post #44

Imagine a world where we held Musk to the same standard as Holmes.

Holmes and Musk are not even close to being the same. Don't let politics cloud your reason. Musk under-delivers some times but what he's done with SpaceX and Tesla is concrete, massive innovation.

[dead]

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

#217

Post by philipallstar »

whaleofatw2022 wrote: post #166
philipallstar wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

... was in jail. He died in 2021. Curiously enough, unless something changed and nobody updated his Wikipedia page, his family didnt even collect his ashes.

Yes - true. I keep forgetting he passed away.

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

#218

Post by xyzelement »

epistasis wrote: post #169
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?"

Interestingly you won't find this for well connected white males. Sam Bankman Fried didn't hurt anybody else in his gender class, but somehow now all women have to carry the baggage of Elizabeth Holmes.

If you think about it a little harder, the pattern isn't just gender but "thing you are standing out for".

In the Holmes case, she was visibly celebrated for being a young female (as a positive) so it's not shocking that it flipped to a negative on people's mind when she was proven to be a fraud.

In the case of SBF, he wasn't celebrated for being male. But he was notable for his association with "effective altruism". Has the reputation of the EA community been adversely affected by his downfall? Absolutely. So that's the more part analogy here.

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

#219

Post by alyeska2 »

epistasis wrote: post #169
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?"

Interestingly you won't find this for well connected white males. Sam Bankman Fried didn't hurt anybody else in his gender class, but somehow now all women have to carry the baggage of Elizabeth Holmes.

You also won't find this for future female founders, because the comment you're replying to is a random internet poster imagining things. You can say "I can imagine VCs saying..." and then complete the sentence with literally anything nonsense, it doesn't mean its real.

A big part of the Theranos story is that gender was used as a shield - when people called it a fraud they were dismissed as sexists and Holmes got a lot of easy positive press coverage from media that was dying for stories of about a female visionary founder.

No women are going to have to "carry the baggage" of Elizabeth Holmes. At most, maybe they just won't have the magical protection against all criticism that she had for a number of years. But realistically, people have short memories so we'll probably have a new "The female Elon Musk" hype cycle start around someone new in a year or two.

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

#220

Post by xyzelement »

Applejinx wrote: post #48
mvdwoord wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No one markets ‘male founder’ as a reason to trust the business. Once gender is framed as a virtue, people start asking whether that claim actually means anything.

The government does! At least right now in the United States. And yeah, I think it's reasonable for people to start asking.

Is there an example of this that you could reference?
Post reply on HN