Live data from Hacker News

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

variety.com

301–310 of 320 posts

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

#301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those denials are literally the only thing in the entire system keeping costs down

Americans have the highest per capita healthcare spend for the lowest health metrics.

Because the only force keeping costs down is insurance death panels. One of our problems is that we don’t have enough death panels compared to our peers.

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

#304
post #94

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…

The general scam of unrealistic promises then under-delivering is such a well worn trope that while gender surely played a part in it (as it is a big part of social perceptions in general) I hesitate to blame it here. I think for anyone who has been in tech for a while it doesn't take an imagination to picture a man doing pretty much the same thing

True enough. The diversity + under-delivering was just a refreshing change for the valley to again fool themselves into being clever again.

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

#305
post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

He was not government. He was not elected. He was just a random person given the reign of the entire government spending. This whole setup was stupid.

Sure, what Elon and his DOGE buddies did was a travesty. But I believe if we're going to fight this, we can't just rest on arbitrary made-up numbers of foreign deaths as a reason to retain a funding vehicle.

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

#307
Elizabeth Holmes is beautiful. Amanda Seyfried did a good job of capturing her persona in The Dropout, and Holmes is a narcissistic self-deluding villain in the story from anyone else's perspective, but she is really just beautiful. I can see where her presence charmed people into seeing what she believed.

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

#308
post #228

Elizabeth Holmes is definitely unhinged, but I feel there's always a little bit of sexism that goes along with it. For example, I believe you could make a very similar documentary around Sam Altman, Elon Musk, or Donald Trump. Altman and Musk just have the ability to find people who have already come up with the ideas instead of inventing the idea themselves. I have no idea how Trump does it.

https://variety.com/2026/film/festivals/elon-musk-ex-ashley-...

https://variety.com/2026/film/reviews/musk-review-elon-musk-...

Turns out, someone is about to release a similar, 4 hour long documentary about Elon Musk.

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

#309
post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Harvard articfle is just PR for a documentary that focuses on an individual (IE, an anecdote intended to be emotionally manipulative). 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'…

> 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. How would one (ethically nor not) perform a randomis…

Thanks, this is more thoughtful than most of the replies I've seen.

I don't think anybody proposed or considered running a randomized trial.

I feel like the evidence standard has to be extremely high if you're claiming that tens of millions of people are going to die in the next few years with the goal of blocking a program from being defunded. Otherwise it's just emotional manipulation- "fight the change by making up numbers that sound bad".

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

#310
post #305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He was not government. He was not elected. He was just a random person given the reign of the entire government spending. This whole setup was stupid.

Sure, what Elon and his DOGE buddies did was a travesty. But I believe if we're going to fight this, we can't just rest on arbitrary made-up numbers of foreign deaths as a reason to retain a funding vehicle.

Yeah but what exactly are we to do? If the bar for proof is so high, there isn't a way to meet it as these things are super complex. I'm all for being rational but at some point we need to accept something is stupid and stop trying to prove it so we can do something about it. What I observe up and down this thread is a demand for very specific evidence for something which is stupid on its face.
Post reply on HN