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

231–240 of 315 posts

Re: Elizabeth Holmes loses bid to stay out of prison

#231

Post by rurp »

bradleyjg wrote: post #178
burnished wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anyone guilty of wage theft getting hit by that law? Just saying, in practice its clearly not about jailing menaces to society.

Do you know of anyone that’s been convicted of wage theft, sent to prison, convicted of a new count of wage theft, sent to prison, and convicted of a new count of wage theft … or did you just want to flog your hobbyhorse regardless of how poor the fit was?

Of course not, their whole point was that nobody gets prosecuted for wage theft despite it being common.

Re: Elizabeth Holmes loses bid to stay out of prison

#232

Post by falseeq »

anigbrowl wrote: post #228
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.

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

I’m not totally defending Tesla’s mildly misleading advertising here. I’m saying it’s not fraud and not really comparable to the massive fraud committed by Holmes.

Re: Elizabeth Holmes loses bid to stay out of prison

#234

Post by memish »

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.

It demonstrably has FSD capability. Marques Brownlee has a video from last year where it drove him to his studio.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9nF0K2nJ7N8

Re: Elizabeth Holmes loses bid to stay out of prison

#235

Post by xtracto »

p_j_w wrote: post #123
bradleyjg wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Three strikes and you’re out isn’t about retribution, it’s about the strong evidence that the specific deterrence and rehabilitation effect of prison will not work on a particular individual.

>rehabilitation effect of prison There is no such effect in the USA. Prisons are 100% not designed to rehabilitate anyone here.

What do you think of Danny Trejo's rehabilitation [1]?

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danny_Trejo#Life_of_crime_and_...

Re: Elizabeth Holmes loses bid to stay out of prison

#236

Post by 00F_ »

ceejayoz wrote: post #219
00F_ wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

so when you have a student driver, or a new driver, the lives of not just them but the people around them are being risked just to test a system. so we should just stop all new drivers. no more new drivers. because a new driver, especially a teenage one, is orders of magnitude more dangerous than the current fsd.

Student drivers are typically subject to significant limitations - no other kids in car, no driving past certain hours, parental supervision for a certain period of time, etc. They're not learning for a billionaire's profit, and they're fairly unlikely to get a software update that causes a whole bunch of them to make the same mistake in a short period of time.

so where is your proposal to limit the passengers of a self driving car, all of the countless brands who are advertising level 2 systems? where is your proposal for compromise? there are none because nobody who likes pouring cold water on tesla is coming from a place of intellectual honesty.

so self driving cars could only exist for a billionaires profit? how about for the countless lives that will be saved by this technology? tens of thousands of people die every year. cmon dude.

Re: Elizabeth Holmes loses bid to stay out of prison

#237

Post by rurp »

ExMachina73 wrote: post #18

Any bets she actually reports? Odds anyone? I feel a woman of her means and personality may try to disappear, go off grid. Does she still have access to money? Were her assets frozen?

I don't know, living off of the grid sounds like it can get pretty uncomfortable. She doesn't really seem like the roughing it type. She probably has a better chance of using her money and connections to try and overturn the conviction on appeal, or maybe beg a future president for a pardon.

Re: Elizabeth Holmes loses bid to stay out of prison

#238

Post by Alupis »

gamblor956 wrote: post #221
Alupis wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The list of countries that do not extradite or cooperate with international law enforcement is surprisingly large... it's not just tropical islands.

There's also plenty of countries that would enjoy harboring a wanted US person.

Re: Elizabeth Holmes loses bid to stay out of prison

#239

Post by singleshot_ »

falseeq wrote: post #230
singleshot_ wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Maybe, if all that is within the four corners of the contract. I don’t think that’s what we are talking about here; our current discussion seems to involve the marketing name of a car feature (full self driving) and the technical functionality that name represents.

With that in mind it seems that you are not thinking about the Rst. 2d Torts 540 duty to investigate rule. I can be justified in relying on something (e.g., your intentionally misleading name for the feature) even if an investigation would have shown the misrepresentation was false. Instead of “totally fine and legal” I would say that this is “a fact-dependent situation.”

Do you believe that selling something called Full Self Driving that actually could not drive itself fully is within the duty of good faith and fair dealing? This sidesteps the issue of the tort of fraudulent misrepresentation and goes right to the heart of the customer confusion a product like a Tesla sows.

Re: Elizabeth Holmes loses bid to stay out of prison

#240

Post by ceejayoz »

00F_ wrote: post #236
ceejayoz wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Student drivers are typically subject to significant limitations - no other kids in car, no driving past certain hours, parental supervision for a certain period of time, etc. They're not learning for a billionaire's profit, and they're fairly unlikely to get a software update that causes a whole bunch of them to make the same mistake in a short period of time.

so where is your proposal to limit the passengers of a self driving car, all of the countless brands who are advertising level 2 systems? where is your proposal for compromise? there are none because nobody who likes pouring cold water on tesla is coming from a place of intellectual honesty. so self driving cars could only exist for a billionaires profit? how about for the countless lives that will be saved by this t…

> so where is your proposal to limit the passengers of a self driving car

That limit is in place for student drivers to limit distractions; it's a specific mitigation to a problem specific to them. FSD needs its own.

> where is your proposal for compromise?

I'd like to see safety data reporting requirements that come from regulators, not Tesla, whose self-reported cherry-picked data points I find quite suspect. (Example of this issue: https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2022-12-27/tesla-stop...)

I'd like to see safety-critical beta software in cars undergo independent audits prior to widespread release. (My dream would be for it to be open source, but that's probably unrealistic.)

I'd like to see formalized safety testing processes of such software at the regulatory level, similar to how crash testing is currently conducted.

I'm sure others have specific, useful suggestions.

> there are none because nobody who likes pouring cold water on tesla is coming from a place of intellectual honesty.

This, ironically, doesn't sound like it comes from a place of intellectual honesty.

> how about for the countless lives that will be saved by this technology?

I certainly hope that happens someday.

Post reply on HN