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

261–270 of 320 posts

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

#261

Post by senordevnyc »

vintagedave wrote: post #123

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

I think what I'm most interested in knowing is whether she was like this before everything collapsed. Is it possible she's just super awkward or on the spectrum or something? No offense intended to folks on the spectrum!, just that my understanding is that sometimes ASD can make it harder to relate in a way that neurotypical people expect.

To me there's obviously way more going on here than just her trying to con you or being a sociopath. This is decidedly NOT what con-men look like when they're trying to take advantage of you.

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

#262

Post by _doctor_love »

evan_ wrote: post #252
_doctor_love wrote: post #202

Oh wow. I saw this trailer late last night on YouTube with the sound off. I kept thinking "why do I feel like I know this person...." At the end, when it said it was a documentary, I thought: "about who?" 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.…

If you think a Nathan Fielder project is going to rehabilitate someone's image then you don't know who Nathan Fielder is.

Let's see who has the last laugh.

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

#263

Post by frumplestlatz »

owebmaster wrote: post #253
frumplestlatz wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dishonest people use social causes as camouflage, and the more unassailable the cause, the more effective it is.

Same way dishonest people use examples like her to attack social causes.

Which is why everything should be open for robust questioning and debate, and individual cases made on their own merit — not based on whatever favored group characteristic happens to put someone or something beyond debate.

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

#264

Post by dekhn »

archagon wrote: post #257
dekhn wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

IIRC, I personally read three different articles where journalists on the ground described specific deaths (with names) from the sudden and unexpected cutoff of aid. And there were studies from top-ranked universities numbering deaths in the hundreds of thousands, extending to millions over time. I do not have these links on hand, but I’m sure you can find them if you’re genuinely interested.

I've spent time looking and can't find anything reputable, so please share links. The studies you're referring to aren't based on evidence, they're estimates. If you're reading articles with specific names, that's journalism by anecdote not data.

I care about facts and data and I know how to read through propaganda. What DOGE did was terrible but I don't really see reliable evidence here for the scale and scope of what the media reported.

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

#265

Post by archagon »

dekhn wrote: post #264
archagon wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IIRC, I personally read three different articles where journalists on the ground described specific deaths (with names) from the sudden and unexpected cutoff of aid. And there were studies from top-ranked universities numbering deaths in the hundreds of thousands, extending to millions over time. I do not have these links on hand, but I’m sure you can find them if you’re genuinely interested.

I've spent time looking and can't find anything reputable, so please share links. The studies you're referring to aren't based on evidence, they're estimates. If you're reading articles with specific names, that's journalism by anecdote not data. I care about facts and data and I know how to read through propaganda. What DOGE did was terrible but I don't really see reliable evidence here for the scale and scope of wh…

“Musk gleefully fed USAID into the woodchipper which directly caused X deaths that could have been avoided through gradual tapering of aid.”

Simple question: how small does X have to be for you to not care?

Or do you genuinely believe that Musk’s antics caused zero excess deaths?

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

#266

Post by dekhn »

Fricken wrote: post #254
dekhn wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

>Musk has said his critics “cannot cite a single name of someone who died” and “If there were, it would be worldwide headline news!” When confronted with the names – including those of children who died because of the cuts – Musk called a journalist “an utter piece of shit and a liar” and “utterly evil”. Musk has claimed, without evidence, that US tax dollars went to arming militants and “corrupt politicians”. https:…

those are estimates, not data. I am asking about actual data. For example, mortality reports, piles of bodies, etc.

I understand feeling emotional about this, I really do. But the important bit is that if you make a big claim "millions of people died", you have to back that with actual evidence, not models.

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

#267

Post by dekhn »

archagon wrote: post #265
dekhn wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've spent time looking and can't find anything reputable, so please share links. The studies you're referring to aren't based on evidence, they're estimates. If you're reading articles with specific names, that's journalism by anecdote not data. I care about facts and data and I know how to read through propaganda. What DOGE did was terrible but I don't really see reliable evidence here for the scale and scope of wh…

“Musk gleefully fed USAID into the woodchipper which directly caused X deaths that could have been avoided through gradual tapering of aid.” Simple question: how small does X have to be for you to not care? Or do you genuinely believe that Musk’s antics caused zero excess deaths?

I'm not sure what your point is.

The problem here is that you are taking as fact something that a person with a vested interested in making Musk look bad has said. I'm just asking: where is the evidence supporting the claims for the deaths of this magnitude?

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

#268

Post by archagon »

dekhn wrote: post #267
archagon wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“Musk gleefully fed USAID into the woodchipper which directly caused X deaths that could have been avoided through gradual tapering of aid.” Simple question: how small does X have to be for you to not care? Or do you genuinely believe that Musk’s antics caused zero excess deaths?

I'm not sure what your point is. The problem here is that you are taking as fact something that a person with a vested interested in making Musk look bad has said. I'm just asking: where is the evidence supporting the claims for the deaths of this magnitude?

My point is that the most prominent tech CEO definitely killed people through reckless action, without apology or remorse. The actual number is unquestionably more than ten; almost certainly in the thousands; and, based (again) on research from people who study this kind of thing for a living, likely in the hundreds of thousands.

But even if he “only” killed 10 people (which we know for a fact based on reporting), that should be more than enough to make him persona non grata in polite society.

The actual numbers are more useful for the history books and eventual tribunals. Maybe that data can be gathered more definitively over time; I’m sure people are working on it as we speak.

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

#269

Post by dekhn »

archagon wrote: post #268
dekhn wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure what your point is. The problem here is that you are taking as fact something that a person with a vested interested in making Musk look bad has said. I'm just asking: where is the evidence supporting the claims for the deaths of this magnitude?

My point is that the most prominent tech CEO definitely killed people through reckless action, without apology or remorse. The actual number is unquestionably more than ten; almost certainly in the thousands; and, based (again) on research from people who study this kind of thing for a living, likely in the hundreds of thousands. But even if he “only” killed 10 people (which we know for a fact based on reporting), th…

Many meaningful change in government policy will cause some people to die. Are you going to tar every politician who makes a decision/law/policy that causes some people to die to be persona non grata?

I think much of people's response to this is driven by emotion, but that's the wrong approach to fighting the current administration and its enablers (organization, protest, daylighting actual problems, and understanding the psychology of the administration all go much further). Further, I think that posting bombastic, unrealistic claims about deaths is just misleading people who are already responding emotionally. Emotions will not get you anywhere in this environment.

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

#270

Post by archagon »

dekhn wrote: post #269
archagon wrote: post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My point is that the most prominent tech CEO definitely killed people through reckless action, without apology or remorse. The actual number is unquestionably more than ten; almost certainly in the thousands; and, based (again) on research from people who study this kind of thing for a living, likely in the hundreds of thousands. But even if he “only” killed 10 people (which we know for a fact based on reporting), th…

Many meaningful change in government policy will cause some people to die. Are you going to tar every politician who makes a decision/law/policy that causes some people to die to be persona non grata? I think much of people's response to this is driven by emotion, but that's the wrong approach to fighting the current administration and its enablers (organization, protest, daylighting actual problems, and understandin…

Aid could have been tapered; advance warning could have been given. But Musk very publicly delighted in feeding USAID into the woodchipper, causing people to die as a direct result of his hasty actions. He simply did not give a fuck about the damage he caused.

This is not how changes to government policy are done. And yes, I’m livid and will eagerly vote anyone into office who will chase down this monster and force him (and his DOGE boys) to face justice. I am far from alone in this.

Post reply on HN