Live data from Hacker News

U.S. Bans Theranos CEO Elizabeth Holmes from Operating Labs for Two Years

wsj.com

201–210 of 280 posts

Re: U.S. Bans Theranos CEO Elizabeth Holmes from Operating Labs for Two Years

#201
post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I never paid much attention to the details of the Madoff case but I think people on the internet throw out the "sociopath" label way too freely. Not much is gained from that label, in my opinion. And I certainly wouldn't apply it to Bernie Madoff or Holmes based on what I know of their situations.

I use the word because, based on his actions, I think he does not have empathy for other people. He knowingly defrauded thousands of people, often depleting all of their savings. The scale of his fraud, and the length of time he perpetuated it, is staggering.

Right, empathy or sympathy would have meant that among other options, in his continued lies to investors, "We made a very bad trade, got into Company X, who went bankrupt / were delisted". He could have shut it down. He chose not to.

Re: U.S. Bans Theranos CEO Elizabeth Holmes from Operating Labs for Two Years

#202

Ouch. Sanctions mean "shutting down and subsequently rebuilding the Newark lab from the ground up, rebuilding quality systems, adding highly experienced leadership, personnel and experts, and implementing enhanced quality and training procedures". There is a chance to appeal, but "such appeals have rarely succeeded in the past". Couple that with an "unspecified monetary penalty" and this looks like a very big nail in…

Whenever you can't view a WSJ article due to paywall, copy/paste the article headline into google search then click the article out of the google results. Paywall will vanish.

If you're talking about a different problem, sorry, no idea.

Re: U.S. Bans Theranos CEO Elizabeth Holmes from Operating Labs for Two Years

#203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> statistically autopilot is safer than human This is not born out by the currently available facts. Tesla quoted deaths-per-autopilot-mile versus overall deaths-per-mile for all cars on the road. This is very misleading information, for a number of reasons. 1. Teslas are high-end luxury cars and thus have better safety features than the lower end of the market. 2. Teslas are likely to be newer and better maintained…

1 and 2 are irrelevant. tesla is a product, it's safety features, autopilot and build quality are part of that product. this product delivers certain deaths-per-mile characteristic. this characteristic in it's direct form can be compared to national average or to any other product. 3 this is valid point, but it's significance is diminishing as autopilot is accumulating death-free miles. also does tesla not deal with…

> 1 and 2 are irrelevant.

#1 and #2 are not at all irrelevant. This sort of technology will make its way into lower-end cars in time. Having actual data on how safe it is, with other variables accounted for, is going to be extremely critical.

It's like claiming racecar driving is really safe because not many people die doing it. That's not actually because it's safe - it's because the drivers are very well trained, with very good safety equipment so they survive crashes.

Teslas are safer than average cars. The autopilot may not be.

> 3 this is valid point, but it's significance is diminishing as autopilot is accumulating death-free miles.

It is certain statistically to have more fatal accidents as it accrues more miles. The underlying issue - that "autopilot miles" are safer miles than "all miles" - will remain. Its accident tallies need to be compared statistically with miles with human drivers in similar road conditions. This will likely require a research study.

> also does tesla not deal with icy/snowy conditions in Norway?

I couldn't say for certain, but it apparently will shut down in moderate rain (http://www.teslarati.com/tesla-autopilot-limitations-heavy-r...) so I'd guess snow would have similar impact on its visibility and functionality.

> 4 is pure speculation.

#4 is an important question.

Re: U.S. Bans Theranos CEO Elizabeth Holmes from Operating Labs for Two Years

#204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

click web > go to article from google

I have read the article (there was no 'web' button but some other comment posted a working link). Still have no idea what Theranos is or what they have done. Apparently they worked fro Walgreen or something?

Google would serve you answers much faster than HN comments.

Re: U.S. Bans Theranos CEO Elizabeth Holmes from Operating Labs for Two Years

#205
post #6

I cant read this article. Can someone provide some backstory? What is Theranos? Why was it shut down?

First, remove rock that is under you, second, go to site named Google, third....

under him?

Re: U.S. Bans Theranos CEO Elizabeth Holmes from Operating Labs for Two Years

#206

I've talked to over 100 hematologists. This business, didn't pass a basic litmus test of objective criticism from people who work in the space. There seems to be this bravado among founders who believe they're sticking it to all the people who say something's amiss. I think if there's an elephant in the room though, it probably should be assassinated with a huge body of transparent evidence.

To be fair, that is how innovation occurs. There are many examples of "ridiculous" ideas that ended being wildly successful. Where would Elon Musk be if he listened to all of the incumbents who said that his ideas would never work? Obviously, the putative innovators massively failed in this case, but I don't think that the outcome proves that their original idea was fatally flawed, or at least that it wasn't worth at…

> Where would Elon Musk be if he listened to all of the incumbents who said that his ideas would never work?

There were no scientific and few engineering objections to most of Musk's projects, mostly social/business objections that the time window was uncertain, the risks were high, and it would be difficult to build a viable business to bridge the gap it would take to get to the objectives.

There's a difference between projects not making sense to the risk tolerances of current incumbents and projects operating in an area where the science is well-established and demonstrates clear reasons why what is proposed cannot work.

Re: U.S. Bans Theranos CEO Elizabeth Holmes from Operating Labs for Two Years

#207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What if the string is completely non-elastic?

At those sizes there is no such thing as "completely non-elastic" (aka "rigid").

At any size, there is no such thing as "completely non-elastic", but at those sizes, pretending that some things are completely non-elastic is no longer a tolerable approximation.

Re: U.S. Bans Theranos CEO Elizabeth Holmes from Operating Labs for Two Years

#208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What if the string is completely non-elastic?

What if the string isn't actually made of matter but is made up of some hypothetical substance that doesn't follow any laws of physics? Same question.

> What if the string isn't actually made of matter but is made up of some hypothetical substance that doesn't follow any laws of physics?

If it doesn't follow any laws of physics, then there is no predictable relationship between any input and its action (since if there was such a predictable relationship, it would be a law of physics that the string was obeying.)

Re: U.S. Bans Theranos CEO Elizabeth Holmes from Operating Labs for Two Years

#210

Hear that? That's the sound of $9B in valuation disappearing :| There is really a thin line between delusion and brilliance.

I'm beginning to wonder if at any point they will pack their bags, return what's left to investors and close up shop...or maybe they'll just keep going until it's completely dead? Hell maybe they pivot to be a traditional lab with traditional equipment?

> I'm beginning to wonder if at any point they will pack their bags, return what's left to investors and close up shop...

They may do so if forced by legal action; otherwise, its unlikely. If management can continue to spend other people's money pretending to try to run a viable business and paying themselves and their associates until there's nothing left to pay with, they'd probably rather do that that hand money back to investors.

Post reply on HN