271–280 of 320 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
(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.
Look up Pan Am smile vs Duchenne smile.
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…
The thing that calls her out as a scammer is that Theranos probably invested more money in the faking it, the deception, with Siemens equipment than they did in actually trying to solve the problem itself.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
https://hsph.harvard.edu/news/usaid-shutdown-has-led-to-hund...
It cites this study, published in The Lancet (open access full text):
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6...
Summary:
The study calculates that 91.8 million all-age deaths, including 30 million deaths of children under 5, were prevented by USAID funding in the period from 2001 to 2021, and projects that DOGE's cuts to USAID will result in 14 million additional all-age deaths, including 4.5 million deaths of children under 5, by 2030.
Is she not in jail right now? Also why in her right mind would she sign up to do this with Fielder? My brain hurts from this project.
Read the article then.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
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.
I believe this is the article he's referring to: https://hsph.harvard.edu/news/usaid-shutdown-has-led-to-hund... It cites this study, published in The Lancet (open access full text): https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6... Summary: The study calculates that 91.8 million all-age deaths, including 30 million deaths of children under 5, were prevented by USAID funding in the period from 2001 to 2…
As for the article, this is modelling, not data (both the retrospective and the predictive). There is no direct causation being shown. You simply cannot make a claim like "X million people will die because USAID was terminated" based on this sort of evidence. It's not factual. It's not logical. Just emotionally driven claims intended to manipulate public opinion.
Love everything Nathan Fielder does. The trailer is awesome. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=GGJSRFWALTI
The Curse was incredible. 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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.