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

Post by ryandrake » Tue, Sep 08, 2026, 4:18 AM UTC

dekhn wrote: post #266

Fricken wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

Post by aanet » Tue, Sep 08, 2026, 4:42 AM UTC

watwut wrote: post #114

embedding-shape wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, the same is maybe more obvious outside of HN, but engineer/tech companies often play the same trope but on "brilliant and smart people but bit naive/rose-tinted views that couldn't unintentionally harm anyone even if they tried", like how media showcased Zuckerberg initially, before everyone realized his true colors.

They still say it about Sam Bankman Friendman and that failed situation awareness fund dude that worked for him. They will even argue, forever, that the situation awareness did not failed or folded, because being margin called does not count when bright smart young person gets margin called.

Post by lelanthran » Tue, Sep 08, 2026, 5:33 AM UTC

hackable_sand wrote: post #234

epistasis wrote: post #210

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…

> 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.

Post by hnthrow550055 » Tue, Sep 08, 2026, 5:47 AM UTC

toasty228 wrote: post #158

seabombs wrote: post #2

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

[flagged]

Post by lelanthran » Tue, Sep 08, 2026, 6:03 AM UTC

kelseyfrog wrote: post #139

lelanthran wrote: post #130

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…