Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Some private equity firms are furious over a paper in a dermatology journal

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 170 posts

Re: Some private equity firms are furious over a paper in a dermatology journal

#121

Post by mikeash »

johncalvinyoung wrote: post #119
mikeash wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There’s a bag of almonds in my pantry that literally says “Contains almonds” on it in the fine print.

Allergen labelling is a huge blessing to anyone with serious allergies. Yes, labeling A Package of Allergens with 'Contains Allergen' might feel weird, but it's critical for non-obvious ingredients and contaminants.

I don’t quite get your point. It’s bizarre and nonsensical in this case, but really useful in other cases, so...? I don’t know how that sentence ends.

Re: Some private equity firms are furious over a paper in a dermatology journal

#122

Post by matthewdgreen »

gaius wrote: post #66
fjsolwmv wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is a conflict of interest to be paid by your client to represent their interests?

It hinges on how plausible the scenario is that you can be a board member with a history of effortlessly mastering complex technical concepts, and all around you are whistleblowers asserting that the technology is a fraud, in which case your equity is worthless, and you decide that the best course of action is to abuse the legal system to intimidate them into silence. It's documented in the book that the family of on…

It creates an environment where the attorney is incentivized to protect his/her own investment in the company, above and beyond representing the company's interest and the interest of the law.

Re: Some private equity firms are furious over a paper in a dermatology journal

#123

Post by eesmith »

mikeash wrote: post #121
johncalvinyoung wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Allergen labelling is a huge blessing to anyone with serious allergies. Yes, labeling A Package of Allergens with 'Contains Allergen' might feel weird, but it's critical for non-obvious ingredients and contaminants.

I don’t quite get your point. It’s bizarre and nonsensical in this case, but really useful in other cases, so...? I don’t know how that sentence ends.

So for consistency's sake it's better to just always list allergens, rather than have the regulations say "except when it's bizarre and nonsensical." Otherwise, someone has to decide where that boundary is.

Re: Some private equity firms are furious over a paper in a dermatology journal

#124

Post by mschuster91 »

testvox wrote: post #76
Kiro wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In many other countries you can not fire someone by default (it's illegal) so calling it a powerful tool sounds wrong.

In what country can you not fire your own employees?

    In what country can you not fire your own employees?
In Germany, you need strong reasons to fire an employee: intentionally causing accidents/damage, theft and other felonies related to your work (so, no firing your employee for drunk driving off the job) or failure to improve performance. The other thing is due to closing of the department or the location or the company going bankrupt, but these cases are often enough fought over in court and especially if the company is not bankrupt it's difficult to get someone fired.

Re: Some private equity firms are furious over a paper in a dermatology journal

#125

Post by SilasX »

djsumdog wrote: post #7

People often wonder what the point of tenure is. Well this is it. Those authors need to not back down, and call attention to this. If they're tenured researchers or professors, they should be able to make publications like this without fear or retaliation from the school or industry.

Tenure protects the professor from the school, not the school from industry lawsuits. Only a sane legal system and consequences for frivolous lawsuits (if this is in fact frivolous) would be relevant here, as the school isn't (yet) trying to punish the professor for this.

Re: Some private equity firms are furious over a paper in a dermatology journal

#126

Post by testvox »

mschuster91 wrote: post #124
testvox wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In what country can you not fire your own employees?

In what country can you not fire your own employees? In Germany, you need strong reasons to fire an employee: intentionally causing accidents/damage, theft and other felonies related to your work (so, no firing your employee for drunk driving off the job) or failure to improve performance. The other thing is due to closing of the department or the location or the company going bankrupt, but these cases are often enou…

Very interesting, honestly I prefer the American system where you can be fired at any time but if fired without cause you are entitled to continue receiving some portion of your paycheck from unemployment insurance.

Re: Some private equity firms are furious over a paper in a dermatology journal

#127

Post by quickben »

kikoreis wrote: post #73
fjsolwmv wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Considering the many YouTube videos of exploding bottles, the warning is for the 10000 people a day learning something for the first time. What's wrong with using literacy to help people learn from the miatskes of others?

Users don't read. We have warnings in my state next to elevators that read "Ensure elevator is at this floor before entering". This is literally accurate but practically ludicrous. The solution to problems of this nature is almost always redesign.

But users sue.

Re: Some private equity firms are furious over a paper in a dermatology journal

#128

Post by testvox »

zmk_ wrote: post #106
testvox wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In what country can you not fire your own employees?

In Sweden you cannot fire people on permanent contracts (that you need to give after 2 years) if you still require their work, i.e., you cannot fire someone without cause and then hire someone else to their exact job. In the Netherlands it is also extremely difficult to get rid of an employee with a permanent contract that you need to eventually give to them. In all cases I personally know of, permanent contract empl…

Does this not create an incentive for companies to rotate through short term workers rather than keep anyone on for more than 2 years?

Re: Some private equity firms are furious over a paper in a dermatology journal

#129

Post by ErikVandeWater »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #40
LaundroMat wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In ancient Rome, Crassus owned the fire department. When there was a home on fire, Crassus would negotiate the price for extinguishing the fire with the owners or tenants. Plus ça change...

I mean, this is close to being right, but it's wrong in every one of the details. Crassus didn't own the fire department. Crassus owned a bunch of slaves who he had trained to put out fires. Crassus didn't charge for extinguishing fires. If your house was on fire, Crassus took his team and negotiated to buy your house . If you sold it to him, he'd put out the fire. There was no flow of money from you to Crassus under…

> Crassus didn't own the fire department. Crassus owned a bunch of slaves who he had trained to put out fires.

That sounds like he literally owned the fire department? It was just made up of slaves.

Otherwise I really found what you said very interesting!

Re: Some private equity firms are furious over a paper in a dermatology journal

#130

Post by mrnobody_67 »

maxxxxx wrote: post #117
gaius wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm disgusted by these high-powered law firms using thuggish tactics to try to silence critics. The actions of Boies law firm, as documented in the book, are particularly egregious. Worse still is that Boies himself has a track record of being super tech savvy; he’s litigated against Microsoft and Google. As he was a board member at Theranos, it stretches credulity that he wasn’t more aware of the deception. Paid in…

I don't think it's a conflict of interest. They got paid by Theranos for their services. But there should be some ethics about helping clients with a lot of money bullying people with no money. Reading about the way Theranos abused whistleblowers with the help of lawyers was infuriating. The little guy simply has no chance against this unless you are willing to risk everything.

He got paid in stock. $4.5m worth if I recall from the book
Post reply on HN