151–160 of 557 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It helps when you’re the opposite of a black male.
My opinion: if you think this is about race and gender (as opposed to about wealth and power) you're being played.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's worth nothing that one of Theranos's VC funders, Tim Draper, did defend Holmes despite the fraud allegations: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11973102 https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/01/theranos-investor-cl...
That's extremely interesting, thanks for sharing. Think about the decision that he had to make in 2016. He had to choose between admiting his mistake and doubling down. The downside of admitting his mistake is that he's guaranteed to get negative points; the upside is that it will minimise futures downsides. By dubling down, he's guaranteed to reduce his negative points in 2016 but exposes himself to magnified upside…
Theranos and Holmes have agreed to settle the fraud charges levied against them. Holmes agreed to pay a $500,000 penalty, be barred from serving as an officer or director of a public company for 10 years, return the remaining 18.9 million shares that she obtained during the fraud, and relinquish her voting control of Theranos by converting her super-majority Theranos Class B Common shares to Class A Common shares. Du…
I wish we could do this to politicians, once caught in lie and fraud, bar them from taking any public office for 10 yrs :). I agree she got away lightly.
States vary in their impeachment proceedings and what burdens must be met.
Ok, this is the money line in that press release for me: “The charges against Theranos, Holmes, and Balwani make clear that there is no exemption from the anti-fraud provisions of the federal securities laws simply because a company is non-public, development-stage, or the subject of exuberant media attention.” For all those entrepreneurs are trying to "fake it until you make it" be aware that the SEC considers your…
There's often a thin line between "startup founder" and "confidence man".
No, there isn't often a thin line. Most founders are not out there committing massive fraud. They may be doing a lot of marketing, and are probably promising things that still have to be built, but they're not out there lying that they have millions in revenue from contracts that don't exist, or falsifying demos.
"We had $50 million in bookings this year" - Misleading because it seems like that should mean $50 million in revenue but all of the bookings were for 10 year contracts so it is really only $5 million in revenue, but it is not fraudulent because it isn't factually untrue.
"We will be able to raise prices enough to be profitable" - Often optimistic to the point of delusion, but without a time machine it is not a statement of fact so it isn't fraud.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
let's dispense with political bullshit. A protracted lawsuit would cost the government millions of dollars with an uncertain outcome. Instead, Holmes is paying the government 500K and returning shares. The SEC is going to court against Balwani, where the case is presumably stronger. the plebs is strictly better off and not everything the government does is bad.
So if it’s too expensive, we should let criminals walk? Fraud is a crime you know. She should be in jail. Kids have gone to prison for marijuana possession and this lady walks? Martha Stewart and that Martin guy went to prison for less.
Ok, this is the money line in that press release for me: “The charges against Theranos, Holmes, and Balwani make clear that there is no exemption from the anti-fraud provisions of the federal securities laws simply because a company is non-public, development-stage, or the subject of exuberant media attention.” For all those entrepreneurs are trying to "fake it until you make it" be aware that the SEC considers your…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Martin Shkreli was, honest to god, an idiot. He got several chances to "kiss the ring" and show remorse, and what did he do? He put some extra oil on the fire and kept acting like an idiot until the very last moment. Sometimes you need to realise when to fold and suck it up.
Alternative take: it's disgusting and offensive to the foundational concept of blind justice that punishment is more highly correlated with charisma and obsequiousness to judges than it is to actual crimes committed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can have all of those listed beliefs and still be honest about the actual state of your company, progress towards goals, etc. Doing so will probably beat those beliefs out of you, and you can come to an honest understanding of your limits. Arrogant, presumptive behavior is annoying -- but I think it's important to keep a bright line between that and dishonesty, because one self corrects and the other doesn't. And…
Then I'm confused: how can you a) hastily dismiss all self-doubt as Impostor Syndrome and b) believe "no one knows what they're doing either" while remaining able to accurately, honestly self-assess your skill, quality of work, and prospects for success? Edit: If you have a good answer, then I would suggest we start posting that as the advice ("here's how you know if you're good enough") rather than immediately tell…
IDK, I feel like that's a sweet spot most people hit at the end of a PhD. Enough confidence in yourself that you can expend lots of resources trying hard things.
Enough humility to recognize that you'll probably fail at most of those things.
And most importantly, the project management, risk management, and communication skills to hedge your big bets.
Enough experience working with top-tier people to know that all of these things are learnable skills that other successful folks are using (including fields medalists and including high-school dropouts).
Maybe there's a difference between the "informed arrogance" of a researcher working on an open problem in their field (or a serial entrepreneur trying to disrupt a huge industry) and the "uninformed arrogance" of a charlatan, hack, or (in this case) fraudster?