Theranos Agrees to Pay $4.65M in Arizona Refunds • Hacker News Board

Re: Theranos Agrees to Pay $4.65M in Arizona Refunds

#31

Post by protomyth » Tue, Apr 18, 2017, 9:52 PM UTC

maverick_iceman wrote: post #22

protomyth wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting, because most of the comments I've heard from friends and relatives is "Snake Oil seller updated for Silicon Valley". Looks has been brought up, but that goes both ways as you don't find many hucksters who are on the ugly side regardless of gender.

True. Zuck, Page-Brin, Evan Spiegel all are pretty good looking. PG once said , "I can be tricked by anyone who looks like Mark Zuckerberg" (though he claims it was a joke)[1]. I think good looking people have a natural advantage when it comes to persuading VCs or getting the media interested in their companies. [1] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-05-03/how-to-ge...

I would love to find the person that doesn't think being "good looking" for the current standard is an advantage. Heck, Hollywood does a TV show about a person who is "Ugly" and even the ugly person is amazing looking.

Being taller is an advantage. Never mind the articles that crop up about people having plastic surgery to look younger so they have a better shot at being a CEO.

Re: Theranos Agrees to Pay $4.65M in Arizona Refunds

#32

Post by berberous » Tue, Apr 18, 2017, 9:52 PM UTC

maverick_iceman wrote: post #22

protomyth wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting, because most of the comments I've heard from friends and relatives is "Snake Oil seller updated for Silicon Valley". Looks has been brought up, but that goes both ways as you don't find many hucksters who are on the ugly side regardless of gender.

True. Zuck, Page-Brin, Evan Spiegel all are pretty good looking. PG once said , "I can be tricked by anyone who looks like Mark Zuckerberg" (though he claims it was a joke)[1]. I think good looking people have a natural advantage when it comes to persuading VCs or getting the media interested in their companies. [1] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-05-03/how-to-ge...

I don't mean to rag on him, but I don't think Zuckerberg is generally viewed as good looking. I also think you are likely misinterpreting PG's quote; I'm guessing he meant that he has a heuristic that anyone Zuck-like (vs. good looking) will be successful.

Re: Theranos Agrees to Pay $4.65M in Arizona Refunds

#33

Post by Mz » Tue, Apr 18, 2017, 9:53 PM UTC

darawk wrote: post #25

Mz wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And, yet, her catastrophe and the fact that it is founded by a woman gets vastly more press than any female successes. So, one must wonder why that is. And my feeling is that it is a form of sexism and the subtext is "See, this is why you shouldn't put a woman in charge." Also, at this point, there are six comments refuting what I said. Why is that? If I am so wrong, crazy and stupid, why do so very many people need…

I think a large part of the initial hype and optimism about Theranos was that its founder was female. People were excited to have a female Steve Jobs type figure, and saw her as an inspiration. I think those same people are now disappointed. But personally I haven't seen anyone blaming her femininity for this happening. There's certainly plenty of instances of men doing this. To the extent that her gender has any fau…

This is how I ended my initial comment:

But, geez, I hate the idea that there is lava-like splash back spattering all other women in the world who are trying to be taken seriously.

Why is this such a terrible thing to express that so many people need to come down on me for feeling this way? If you were, say, a black guy concerned about some black guy getting enormous bad press and how that impacts blacks, would that merit this kind of dismissive pile on and massive downvoting?

And if it did, would you think it only proved your point that racism and bad press is a real concern?

And I apologize for aiming this at you. I am doing so because you seem to have the most evenhanded reply here so far. So it isn't intended to be ugly to you per se.

Re: Theranos Agrees to Pay $4.65M in Arizona Refunds

#34

Post by ianamartin » Tue, Apr 18, 2017, 9:53 PM UTC

Mz wrote: post #5

To my disgust, the biggest thing most people seem to take away from it is "Yup, that's what happens when a woman is in charge of a business." I'm a woman. I am fine with her burning. But, geez, I hate the idea that there is lava-like splash back spattering all other women in the world who are trying to be taken seriously.

I disagree with your takeaway, but I agree with the point that much of the talk about Theranos is really about gender.

That company just doesn't get covered without people talking about how Elizabeth Holmes is, in fact, a woman, and how she tries to channel a Steve Jobs persona, and how it's not working.

If Travis Kaladick or whatever his name is were running the company, the narrative would be very different.

I don't know how or if there is splashback against women trying to be taken seriously. But if there is, I wish you the best.

Re: Theranos Agrees to Pay $4.65M in Arizona Refunds

#35

Post by Mz » Tue, Apr 18, 2017, 9:56 PM UTC

ianamartin wrote: post #34

Mz wrote: post #5

To my disgust, the biggest thing most people seem to take away from it is "Yup, that's what happens when a woman is in charge of a business." I'm a woman. I am fine with her burning. But, geez, I hate the idea that there is lava-like splash back spattering all other women in the world who are trying to be taken seriously.

I disagree with your takeaway, but I agree with the point that much of the talk about Theranos is really about gender. That company just doesn't get covered without people talking about how Elizabeth Holmes is, in fact, a woman, and how she tries to channel a Steve Jobs persona, and how it's not working. If Travis Kaladick or whatever his name is were running the company, the narrative would be very different. I don'…

Thank you.

Re: Theranos Agrees to Pay $4.65M in Arizona Refunds

#36

Post by berberous » Tue, Apr 18, 2017, 9:57 PM UTC

Mz wrote: post #20

cjf4 wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've seen this complaint several times, but personally have yet to see any comments attributing the disaster to Theranos's founder being a woman.

And, yet, her catastrophe and the fact that it is founded by a woman gets vastly more press than any female successes. So, one must wonder why that is. And my feeling is that it is a form of sexism and the subtext is "See, this is why you shouldn't put a woman in charge." Also, at this point, there are six comments refuting what I said. Why is that? If I am so wrong, crazy and stupid, why do so very many people need…

Her success also got more press than anyone else, males included. She was a darling of the media for a long time. Here's her gracing the cover of Fortune magazine, with some puff piece inside: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CF09f1LVEAAG-oL.jpg

Also, "Silicon Valley unicorn is essentially a fraud" is inherently more interesting (in a click-bait / gossipy kind of way), then just a random success story. Rajat Gupta is one of the few Goldman Sachs partners I'm aware of, and it's because he went to jail.

Re: Theranos Agrees to Pay $4.65M in Arizona Refunds

#37

Post by Helmet » Tue, Apr 18, 2017, 9:58 PM UTC

Mz wrote: post #20

cjf4 wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've seen this complaint several times, but personally have yet to see any comments attributing the disaster to Theranos's founder being a woman.

And, yet, her catastrophe and the fact that it is founded by a woman gets vastly more press than any female successes. So, one must wonder why that is. And my feeling is that it is a form of sexism and the subtext is "See, this is why you shouldn't put a woman in charge." Also, at this point, there are six comments refuting what I said. Why is that? If I am so wrong, crazy and stupid, why do so very many people need…

"If I am so wrong, crazy and stupid, why do so very many people need to step up and inform me of my error?"

You're putting words into peoples' mouths - no one has called you crazy or stupid.

In fact, most people are not even saying you are wrong, hence that they are prefacing their responses with "Really?" or "Interesting..." because their experiences have been different.

Re: Theranos Agrees to Pay $4.65M in Arizona Refunds

#38

Post by yumyai » Tue, Apr 18, 2017, 9:58 PM UTC

Mz wrote: post #26

yumyai wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"If I am so wrong, crazy and stupid, why do so very many people need to step up and inform me of my error?" Because it is wrong?

Oh, and in addition to all the downvotes and the pile on, you needed to create a brand new account to join the pile on. But, sure, I am just a vitriolic, hysterical woman who is oversensitive. I couldn't possibly have a valid point or concern.

Thank you, I couldn't phrase it better even if I try.

Re: Theranos Agrees to Pay $4.65M in Arizona Refunds

#39

Post by RangerScience » Tue, Apr 18, 2017, 10:02 PM UTC

throwaway90001 wrote: post #17

RangerScience wrote: post #2

The story of Theranos makes me think about where the "great filter" lines for startups are. My prior company - who I was with from ~20 people to the current 300+ - has been going through some shakeups that make me wonder. This adds to my thinking. I'd have thought that both were past those lines - hundreds of people, multiple offices? Seems like it'd be solid at that point. The common factor is that both have yet to…

How do you scale to 300+ employees in multiple offices without having released a product? It sounds like both companies were just money-burning machines, where the only thing keeping them afloat is VC funding. If you aren't selling something for more than it costs you to make (or deliver, in the case of services), you're not going to have anywhere to sit when the music stops.

Products were released, but they were all side offerings, not the main dish.

Re: Theranos Agrees to Pay $4.65M in Arizona Refunds

#40

Post by zeroer » Tue, Apr 18, 2017, 10:02 PM UTC

Mz wrote: post #5

To my disgust, the biggest thing most people seem to take away from it is "Yup, that's what happens when a woman is in charge of a business." I'm a woman. I am fine with her burning. But, geez, I hate the idea that there is lava-like splash back spattering all other women in the world who are trying to be taken seriously.

I've never heard this criticism.