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

Elizabeth Holmes loses bid to stay out of prison

cnbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 315 posts

Re: Elizabeth Holmes loses bid to stay out of prison

#221

Post by gamblor956 »

Alupis wrote: post #75
stametseater wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A woman of her means is not accustomed to life on the run.

There are many places that do not extradite, even if you are known to be living there. Life on the run is a Hollywood thing - the CIA isn't going to kick down her door and blackbag her back to the US. If she leaves the US, she is effectively gone unless she does something really stupid.

The CIA does not deal with fugitives....but the FBI does. They have a task force devoted to tracking down fugitives.

The FBI generally works through Interpol to bring back international fugitives (for example, Tamara Dadyan) but will also "blackbag" fugitives if necessary. It's just not necessary to do that very often.

Re: Elizabeth Holmes loses bid to stay out of prison

#222

Post by from »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #203
from wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What about receiving stolen property, perjury, campaign finance violations, etc? There are enough ethically flexible people out there and if you remove the major deterrent from doing these societally bad but nonviolent things I think occurrences of them would all increase a decent amount.

> receiving stolen property, perjury, campaign finance violations, etc Campaign finance violations seem clear cut corruption. (Again, not mandatory jail sentencing. But jail is on the table.) Perjury and contempt obviously need the capacity to put someone in jail. I resolve the moral discrepancy with their short durations. Theft is the elephant in the room for this framework, and I don't have a good answer for it.

> In 2011, Junker admitted to all of this when he pleaded guilty to one count of criminal conspiracy. Specifically, he acknowledged conspiring to solicit political campaign contributions from Fiesta Bowl employees and to later reimburse those employees in the guise of employee bonuses. (https://rollcall.com/2014/04/08/do-campaign-finance-violatio...)

There are campaign finance violations that I would not consider corruption in the quid-pro-quo sense but are still illegal. I am sympathetic to your line of reasoning though I think the current sentencing guidelines are by and large fair. I would like to see less emphasis on "intended loss" and more rewards for making victims whole.

Re: Elizabeth Holmes loses bid to stay out of prison

#223

Post by 00F_ »

ok_dad wrote: post #210
00F_ wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

so when they introduced drive by wire, and just put it out there on the roads without telling anyone, that was reckless? or any of the countless other designs that have led us to the modern cars we have now? how about all the severe recalls, not over the air recalls that tesla gets press for but real safety issues? GM and the others have tons and tons of real physical safety recalls, way more than tesla, and thats no…

Well, drive by wire wasn't just put out there, it was tested on military jets for decades and the tech eventually got to cars. There are also testing rigs and failsafes for such designs, however Tesla is just putting a black-box AI on the roads in charge of massive vehicles. I'm not going to engage with someone like you any longer, though, as you're being really fucking rude.

[flagged]

Re: Elizabeth Holmes loses bid to stay out of prison

#224

Post by rurp »

nullc wrote: post #172
KindAndFriendly wrote: post #15

Reading this entire story, it baffles me that as of today I can still add a "Full Self-Driving Capability" option when ordering a Tesla.

I wonder if dealers are still telling people that the future robotaxi service means that the car will entirely pay for itself?

Man, that's a blast from the past. Elon was claiming that was about to happen seven years ago.

Re: Elizabeth Holmes loses bid to stay out of prison

#225

Post by luckylion »

francisofascii wrote: post #91
luckylion wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In short: you don't want them to feel any consequences beyond having to pay back the money. I'm sure that'll work great as a deterrent.

Jail and paying money are not the only two deterrents available.

What were you thinking off? Surely no corporal punishment?

House arrest won't be on the table either ("what good does that do?"). Being barred from starting a company? I can see people arguing against that ("but it'll allow her to pay back the money sooner") for the same reasons they're arguing against punishment.

Re: Elizabeth Holmes loses bid to stay out of prison

#226

Post by mynameisvlad »

morelisp wrote: post #184
mynameisvlad wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the point is so opaque that four separate comments miss it, then maybe it was not well described in the first place. It’s less a knee-jerk defense of Tesla and more of a knee-jerk “what are you talking about that’s absurd” because at face value it’s an exceptionally absurd claim.

It's a joke about Theranos, the biggest corporate fraud story of the decade and the parallel topic of the thread!

I mean, that doesn’t change how it’s a confusing and seemingly absurd claim at face value.

It doesn’t read like a joke, it doesn’t in any way imply the link, it just sounds like an absurd statement put out to incite responses. And people clearly all read it this way. If one person read it wrong then sure, you might have a point. If every single person replying read it this way, then it just shows the point was not clearly articulated to begin with.

Even if you had just watched the documentaries about Theranos, I doubt you could have immediately pieced that connection on first read.

Re: Elizabeth Holmes loses bid to stay out of prison

#227

Post by dragonwriter »

donatj wrote: post #133

Are ankle monitors in this day and age not to the point where we can't keep people who are yet to be sentenced out of prison?

> Are ankle monitors in this day and age not to the point where we can't keep people who are yet to be convicted out of prison?

She has been tried, convicted, and sentenced, and is trying to avoid prison during her appeal, so your question is irrelevant here.

Re: Elizabeth Holmes loses bid to stay out of prison

#228

Post by anigbrowl »

falseeq wrote: post #157
figassis wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't think this is the point. Calling something Oranges, and then saying "they're not really oranges, but an approximation, but we call them oranges bc it sounds cool" is still fraudulent in my view.

No that’s not fraud. Fraud requires a lie and justifiable , detrimental reliance on that lie by a victim.

I'm really tired of people just treating words as meaningless attention hooks and then leaning on a unilaterally convenient redefinition of them.

Re: Elizabeth Holmes loses bid to stay out of prison

#229

Post by morelisp »

mynameisvlad wrote: post #226
morelisp wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a joke about Theranos, the biggest corporate fraud story of the decade and the parallel topic of the thread!

I mean, that doesn’t change how it’s a confusing and seemingly absurd claim at face value. It doesn’t read like a joke, it doesn’t in any way imply the link, it just sounds like an absurd statement put out to incite responses. And people clearly all read it this way. If one person read it wrong then sure, you might have a point. If every single person replying read it this way, then it just shows the point was not cl…

> seemingly absurd ... doesn’t read like a joke

Buddy,

Re: Elizabeth Holmes loses bid to stay out of prison

#230

Post by falseeq »

singleshot_ wrote: post #213
falseeq wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No that’s not fraud. Fraud requires a lie and justifiable , detrimental reliance on that lie by a victim.

Hi, welcome to hacker news. Why wouldn’t a buyer be justified in relying upon a sellers description of the goods for sale?

Because the more detailed description of the feature clearly explains what it does and doesn’t do. Say you sign a contract, one section is titled “Seller Assumes Liability for Injury” but then the text of that section lists some circumstances where they don’t. Totally fine and legal.
Post reply on HN