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

241–250 of 320 posts

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

#241

Post by anukin »

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.

Even after Holmes, Charlie Javice got funded. Even now Mira Murati and others involved in AI are well funded. I don’t think upper class white women are affected much by Elizabeth Holmes.

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

#242

Post by tootie »

xyzelement wrote: post #227
tootie wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I remember the endless glazing of Sam Bankman-Fried being pretty similar. Pretty sure they engineered it that way. Sell the idea of success. Trump did the exact same thing.

I think it's a little different. To use a micro-example - I've been to various Trump buildings around the world. I've skated at a trump operated rink, I've seen the trump golf courses. So whatever opinion we have about trump and his practices, there's clearly a tangible output, a product that people use and enjoy. I do agree that trump certainly cultivates an image of success but there is also clearly tangible succes…

It's pretty well documented that his father groomed his image for him with the money he earned in real estate. A lot of things with Trump's name on them are things he didn't actually build. They are branding agreements.

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

#243

Post by watwut »

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.

He lies all the time and she was convinced of lying to investors. Musk dont just underdelivers, he literally consistently knowingly lies.

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

#244

Post by cindyllm »

shimman wrote: post #211
epihelix wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[dead]

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

#245

Post by [deleted] »

xyzelement wrote: post #180
noir_lord wrote: post #125

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

[deleted]

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

#246

Post by [deleted] »

SOLAR_FIELDS wrote: post #162

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…

[deleted]

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

#247

Post by sarchertech »

embedding-shape wrote: post #104
sarchertech wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah but the “vision” was just the ideas of a kid with 2 semesters of college classes under her belt saying “what if”. It was never going to work. She had tons of competent engineers working for her. The basic idea was and is unworkable. If she had come up with an actual good idea with only 2 semesters of experience then sure you could say she was a genius. Even if she couldn’t successfully build a company. But the m…

> 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…

That’s true. But this idea was unworkable because of basic biology/physics. It doesn’t matter how good the sensor is if you’re dealing with bad samples.

For most of the tests they wanted to perform, a finger stick will always provide an unrepresentative sample. And not in a predictable way.

The thing is experienced people knew this. All you had to do was to talk to anyone who knew the biology and they would have told you this could never work. Not this can’t work with today’s technology, but this is fundamentally at odds with reality.

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

#248

Post by jazzdev »

SilasX wrote: post #176
epistasis wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Uh, let me tell you that that behavior is ignored in high profile scientists regardless of disability. It is only in the last couple years that outright sexual abuse of employees and trainees has become something that could discredit a high profile scientist, and even those people are getting plenty of support in finding new places to do research thanks to the Epstein class. Hawking was long dead before that, and man…

Heh, I have a variant of Hanlon's Razor: Never attribute, to bigotry, that which can be explained by misanthropy. That is, don't assume that bad behavior is because of someone's membership in a particular demographic, when it could just be a general instance of people being assholes.

This reminds me a sexual harassment training class I had to take at a startup decades ago. [They actually called it that too, like they were training us how to sexually harass!] We learned about something called the equal opportunity jerk defense. If you could prove you were an asshole to everyone, then you weren't guilty of sexual harrassment.

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

#249

Post by FireBeyond »

Spooky23 wrote: post #160
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…

She cosplayed Steve Jobs with the sweater, had obviously studied the west coast CEO bullshit trope stuff, and everything and used her earnest attractive nature to dupe a bunch of well known old men to endorse her. Being female was a part of the grift but not the most notable. Many male grifters do the same thing without the girl power thing. Being female is key for the sympathy play after the fact, and this little ex…

Yeah, the Balwani stuff. Now I know there is nuance and some people will read this as victim shaming but...

"she was really just a innocent naive girl fighting her way up and through, revolutionizing tech and the medical industry, but being beat down, serially sexually harassed, if not assaulted, or abused by Balwani, the real evil in this story"...

Except she was the CEO. She might have had a romantic relationship with Balwani but she was his boss.

"Powerless to help herself and stop this from happening". To steal from our current occupant in the White House, "You're fired".

None of that was an issue until her trial.

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

#250

Post by anukin »

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.

Before netflix there were adult websites which innovated on that. Same goes for payment softwares.
Post reply on HN