Live data from Hacker News

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

variety.com

231–240 of 320 posts

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

#231
post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

By that logic don't read anything at all.

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

#232
So many thoughts here but yeah:

> but shortly before her prison sentence was set to begin she decided she wanted someone to document her last days of freedom. Maybe she wanted to have her say

What, had she not gotten to have her say in all of the hundreds of interviews up until that point?

> 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

And yet she went to (and dropped out of) Stanford for chem eng and spent most of her time in labs and genomics. Dropout or not you can't point to her as being "corporate, not chemist".

> Holmes says to Fielder that she’s never told a lie in her life.

So what was telling some facilities people to move some document cabinets in front of the door way to the actual lab where all the FDA inspectors would see was a bank of Siemens machines doing the work that she was telling the FDA her machines were doing?

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

#233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Musk as well among others.

I find this a week comparison. I've driven a Tesla, I've used PayPal. My government has used spaceX to do space things. Whatever you think of Musk there's a significant amount of "actually exists and works" that's on a different planet vs Theranos

Don't use PayPal when pointing to an achievement of Musk's.

PayPal was already a working prototype, trademarked, and ready to go when Musk's failing-to-take-off online bank merged with them.

Musk was made CEO because he was the largest shareholder when they tried to figure out relative valuations at the merger.

He lasted four months. Spent most of it arguing with engineering about throwing away the full working prototype in favor of rewriting it from scratch in a language he understood, and arguing with the board about whether or not that was really what he should be focused on as CEO.

He lasted four months.

And in a world where executives resign, or "spend time with their family", etc., the Board of PayPal, having just attended Musk's wedding that weekend, publicly fired him on Monday morning as he was boarding a plane to go to his honeymoon. That is how bad it was.

Musk's actual contribution to PayPal is mostly "cashing the dividend checks".

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

#234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> She was sold as a successful Stanford dropout Is, uh, "sexism" in the room with us now?

Obviously? Just because a fish doesn't see water doesn't mean it's not there. They're just so used to it that they don't have the concept of "not water." 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 hav…

> usually HN is far more sharp.

Try steering a fast horse with blinders. Most people here hit a fucking wall at mach 7 when you try to show them reality.

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

#235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Obviously? Just because a fish doesn't see water doesn't mean it's not there. They're just so used to it that they don't have the concept of "not water." 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 hav…

Your bias and/or obsession are blinding you to the situation here. There are hundreds of Standord dropouts running startups. And if they do fraud, people call it out, the media reports it as fraud, investors and customers leave, and that's the end. But Holmes successfully marketed herself with gender as a central part of her story, so that people like you would defend her, promote her and dismiss criticism against th…

Yeah, when there's the comment of "marketed as a successful woman" it's "by who"? Media jumped on board, but that was heavily the message being pushed by Holmes and Theranos, Bagwani, because it was their lever to stand out. To then say "but not like that" is BS.

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

#236

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…

I'd hesitate to jump to the conclusion that Holmes had editorial control over the way journalists portrayed her. The idea that a 'young woman overcoming the odds' story sells more than 'young man overcoming the odds' doesn't take any leaps of faith to explain. That doesn't mean that Holmes didn't benefit from such coverage, she obviously did, but to call it part of the scam as if it was under her control seems a bit…

If you read a lot of the in depth reporting, and what came up at trial, Holmes and Bagwani themselves and their PR team pushed it heavily. The media lapped it up but she was fully "leaned in".

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

#237
post #2

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

She would have made a terrific actress playing mafiosi. I can see her giving that death stare while knifing Johnny nine-toes and pulling out his entrails.

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

#238
post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 i…

It’s partly by design—the word senate shares its root with the word senex “old man” (whence also senile, etc.) because it’s literally a council of elders. That’s what the Roman one was and what the US constitution (among others) was attempting to emulate.

Partly, though, it’s a bit more interesting than that[1]. Wikipedia has an interesting chart[2] titled “Lifespan of each United States president”, which shows that in modern-ish times, the generation from which US presidents come is sticky: you get three presidents born ca. 1855, then one born ca. 1865, two ca. 1875, three from the late 1880s, four(!) from the 1910s (starting with “young” JFK), Carter/Reagan/Bush Sr. oscillate between the 1910s and 1920s, then again four from the 1940s (starting with “young” Clinton) only interrupted by “young” Obama (born 1961). (I could start my recounting earlier and it would still work.) Trump and Biden appear abnormal if you look at their ages, but if you look at their birth years instead they are simply a backslide, after Obama, to the generation of Clinton and Bush Jr.

What does appear true is that generations hold onto their power for longer and longer before the snap transition to the next eligible generation happens. Longer life expectancy due to better medical care seems like a perfectly satisfactory explanation for that.

[1] I first read about this idea a few years ago and I don’t remember where, so I’ll need to attempt my own explanation. Sorry.

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_presidents_of_the_Unit...

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

#239

For those who are experts on body language, non-verbal communication, psychological communication tricks, etc -- what on earth are we seeing in that trailer?

The charitable take is she is an expert in method acting; she has become the fantasy she invented. The less charitable take is that she is a sociopath lacking the ability to realize the danger and harm her fraud is causing.
Post reply on HN