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

291–300 of 315 posts

Re: Elizabeth Holmes loses bid to stay out of prison

#291

Post by dragonwriter »

ashwagary wrote: post #260
dragonwriter wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The federal sentencing guidelines have nothing to do with California state criminal law. Of course, if an act is both a federal and state crime, you can be prosecuted for each. In fact, if an act is a crime in multiple states (which is possible), you can be charged and punished separately by each state as well as the federal government if it is also a federal crime. This rarely happens even where theoretically possib…

>if an act is a crime in multiple states (which is possible), you can be charged and punished separately by each state For the California three strikes law, am I correct in guessing all three strikes have to be in the state of California, or can 1-2 of the earlier strikes be in another state? If the former is true, is the optimal choice after 2 strikes to leave California permanently (other than ceasing criminal acti…

> For the California three strikes law, am I correct in guessing all three strikes have to be in the state of California

The prior strikes don't have to be in California or under California law, but if they are convictions from another jurisdiction, the conviction must include all the elements of a California offense which would be countable as a prior strike (one that is classified as a “serious or violent felony”.)

The final strike must be a conviction under California law.

> If the former is true, is the optimal choice after 2 strikes to leave California permanently

Well, I suppose, but note that sonething like 23 other states and the Federal government have three strikes laws, too, and many of them (including the federal one) consider prior strikes from other jurisdictions.

And habitual criminals aren’t often warmly welcomed by foreign immigration authorities.

Re: Elizabeth Holmes loses bid to stay out of prison

#292

Post by anuraaga »

gamblor956 wrote: post #254
Alupis wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The list of countries that don't extradite to the U.S. and the list of countries a wealthy person would want to live in don't have much overlap, unless you think Syria and Somalia are wonderful places to live. (There are a number of countries, like Indonesia and Vatican City that don't have extradition treaties with the U.S. but which will extradite to the U.S. through Interpol.)

The most famous recent example if probably Ghosn fleeing Japan to Lebanon. It does make one wonder how likely it will be for the next case. That being said, the coincidence of great wealth and being from a country that treats you as a hero and doesn't have extradition treaties with the west does seem quite low, but obviously not zero.

Re: Elizabeth Holmes loses bid to stay out of prison

#294

Post by ceejayoz »

gergi137 wrote: post #276
ceejayoz wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s the same old sketchy number they like to tout. Autopilot can only be used in safer conditions, and if the car goes “whoops I’m out, take over” shortly before an accident that doesn’t count in that stat either.

It’s not an old number, it’s a new number reported every quarter. But you’re right that comparing largely highway miles vs all miles isn’t completely fair. FSD on the other hand can be activated and used in most scenarios and has 3.2 million miles between accidents vs the US average of 500,000 miles. So still quite a bit safer but less so than autopilot. As for autopilot deactivating right before an accident, if auto…

> It’s not an old number, it’s a new number reported every quarter.

"Old number" here means "the same old stat they trot out every time". The value gets updated; the concerns over its being a cherry-picked apples-to-oranges comparison remain.

FSD still nopes out in the most challenging circumstances, which are the circumstances where accidents are far more likely to happen. It's like a surgeon bragging about their low complication rate; if they run out of the OR screaming when something unexpected happens and their colleague has to take over, it's not a super useful stat.

Re: Elizabeth Holmes loses bid to stay out of prison

#295

Post by nickcox »

estebank wrote: post #86
haliskerbas wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

$TSLA made enough people rich I suppose. I saw some gains myself although not on a large scale. Still don’t like the guy but there’s the old adage “for my friends everything, for my enemies the law”. If $TSLA plummets a crazy amount the tables may turn

> Still don’t like the guy but there’s the old adage Interestingly, Juan Domingo Peron's version of that adage was "For our friends, everything. For our enemies, not even justice." I'm not sure which one is worse, but they are certainly both evocative. > If $TSLA plummets a crazy amount the tables may turn It depends. What happened here is that Holmes screwed over peers, and not just consumers. I don't think anything…

> I don't think anything will happen to $TSLA's CEO unless except through malice aimed at his peers that affects their wealth.

He needs to watch out for the Saudis, for sure.

Re: Elizabeth Holmes loses bid to stay out of prison

#296

Post by omnibrain »

lallysingh wrote: post #140
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.

It's actually really common. Like lemonade with no fruit juice. Or check out "Mayo" fake mayonnaise. It's literally not mayonnaise.

That's why in Europe we have laws against this type of false labeling.

Re: Elizabeth Holmes loses bid to stay out of prison

#297

Post by AbrahamParangi »

wpietri wrote: post #255
HelloMcFly wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't like Holmes and am pleased she's getting some comeuppance, but I can play Devil's Advocate in this one space: maybe she always wanted kids, focused on her career (lol), then this all happened, XYZ. Holmes is 39 years old. If she really, truly wanted biological children then now was the time to make sure it happened. She's a villain, but she's also a complex human being that probably has multiple priorities, g…

I never said she didn't want children. She may well have. So what? She wanted investors' money, too. Having wants does not justify harm to others.

I think it’s morally fraught to argue “this child should not exist”.

Re: Elizabeth Holmes loses bid to stay out of prison

#298

Post by singleshot_ »

falseeq wrote: post #287
singleshot_ wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Yes, good faith and fair dealing has nothing to do with this and shows that while you may know enough to pull out the restatement, you don’t really get the law. Good faith has to do with conduct in the execution of an agreement that undermines the deal without seeming to technically violate it. It doesn’t have anything to do with putting caveats in fine print.

False, of course; a bait and switch contract is a violation of the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing. The conduct of delivering something that is not what you advertised fulfills the elements.

If you want to sit here and tell me that the contract actually says the car can't drive itself, that's fine but my hypothetical had nothing to do with a caveat in fine print. I suggest before you make a personal attack, you do your best to read the regular-sized print that I delivered to you. The website which you are using this twenty-hour old account to troll has some rules, too, and you would do better to study those rather than to try to contradict me.

Re: Elizabeth Holmes loses bid to stay out of prison

#299

Post by wpietri »

AbrahamParangi wrote: post #297
wpietri wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I never said she didn't want children. She may well have. So what? She wanted investors' money, too. Having wants does not justify harm to others.

I think it’s morally fraught to argue “this child should not exist”.

I think that's a pretty bizarre way to take "this person should not have had children". Once they do it, we can't talk about it? Do I have to stop saying "let's work to end teen pregnancy" because of all the kids out there who whose mothers were teens?

Re: Elizabeth Holmes loses bid to stay out of prison

#300

Post by wpietri »

HelloMcFly wrote: post #286
pas wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

she, as most sociopaths, was overly ambitious, that got her into trouble after all. probably has the same mindset now regarding "having kids" or "family"

Sure, maybe. I guess I'm just saying there is more than one plausible explanation for the decisions she made regarding motherhood. I may detest what she did, she doesn't need any defending. It's easy to be overly reductive about people, but most people have complex, unrelated, and sometimes contradictive motivations.

Again, so what?

People who do bad things often have complex motivations. That doesn't make what they did not bad. Whatever Holmes's internal state, she chose to have children that she knew she was very likely to have to abandon. I'm sure there are things in her character and history that might explain this, some more sympathetic than others. But are you claiming there's something that could justify that level of disregard for the wellbeing of children?

Post reply on HN