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

Theranos Agrees to Pay $4.65M in Arizona Refunds

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 96 posts

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

#41

Post by RangerScience »

JimboOmega wrote: post #10
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…

You could say Theranos' core product was "released" - they were doing blood testing. Maybe badly . Maybe clandestinely on other equipment. But as far as the rest of the world was concerned it was "working". Plus you have to define what "core product" means. Is it the bit that makes money? A lot of startups have slotted the money making bit in later and gone alright; others never really could figure that out. And... r…

Maybe their core product, but not their flagship product.

Theranos was built on the promise of an amazing new tech for blood testing, not on the promise of blood testing.

By "flagship product" I mean the thing you're basing your corporate identity on. Like the stereotypical waiter in LA, they're actually an actor; their identity (flagship product) is actor, but their day job (released/core products) is something else.

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

#43

Post by Helmet »

Mz wrote: post #33
darawk wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

If I was black and that black guy was getting bad press simply for being black, I would be concerned.

If he was getting bad press because he did something stupid/unlawful/unethical/etc I would not be concerned because why in the world would I be?

It's actually racist for you to insinuate that his blackness would be a factor at all.

This all reminds me of the Erlich / Dinesh racist scene in Silicon Valley -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSzmVFF58Mo

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

#44

Post by darawk »

Mz wrote: post #33
darawk wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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?

I'm not sure exactly how to respond to that. I'm slightly confused I guess as to why you feel people are coming down on you or dismissing you. To me, HN is a place where we all discuss our ideas about things and try to achieve a sort of collective consensus about the world. We certainly don't (and shouldn't!) all agree about everything, but we expose our ideas to one another in an attempt to improve our collective comprehension of the world around us.

When I respond to a comment like yours, i'm not (usually) intending to attack it or tear it down - at least not in an aggressive way. I thought your point of view was interesting and worth responding to with my own. By this mechanism of back and forth, ideally we'd come to a shared understanding of what's happening in this situation. I find that process to be enjoyable and enlightening, which is why I responded to your comment.

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

I think sexism is absolutely real and is absolutely a real concern. It's just that I have not perceived sexism in the response to this particular situation. However, part of my reason for replying to your comment was to try to better understand why it is that you do perceive it that way. There may be some article or set of comments you've seen that I have not that might change my view. Or maybe we simply saw the same things and interpreted them differently. Either way, i'm curious to understand that divergence, and ultimately to change my own opinion if it needs changing.

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

#45

Post by hkmurakami »

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 have literally never seen that sentiment in a single post here (maybe it's different in person walking the streets somewhere?), and I'm a pretty hopeless HN addict who's read at least 10+ Theranos threads here and hundreds of posts.

But if you say you've encountered it, I'm inclined to believe you. Which websites do you see this sentiment in? HN? Reddit? FB comments? WSJ comments? Or do you see it in the workplace?

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

#46

Post by Helmet »

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'…

How would the narrative be different? Travis Kalanick has been absolutely shit on by the press, and the HN crowd in general, and what he has done is arguably much less egregious than what Elizabeth Holmes has done.

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

#47

Post by hkmurakami »

protomyth wrote: post #31
maverick_iceman wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Height and looks are such an advantage. It's interesting because I actually notice myself being affected by their looks or their height and even then I'm likely not able to completely separate out this effect.

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

#48

Post by hkmurakami »

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?

Frankly, human nature: https://xkcd.com/386/

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

#49

Post by Retric »

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.

There where two major signs that the company was full of it. First advertising a mostly Business to Business product like blood testing. Second, there have been years of research into getting pinprick glucose testing to work and that's known to have poor accuracy. Doing this accurately for a wide range of tests fails the product smell test.

Now, a lot of people feel validated that it was snake oil so yea they will dump on the company, but IMO it has little to do with the founder. It's their board that I found really suspicious.

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

#50

Post by Mz »

darawk wrote: post #44
Mz wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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? I'm not sure exactly how to respond to that. I'm slightly confused I guess as to why you feel people are coming down…

And you are one of about two people here even trying to understand my point of view. Most of the other responses are simply aimed at shooting me down in one manner or another. This is the essence of the problem: I am not even supposed to voice my opinion or feeling.

The vast majority of sexism (racism, etc) is not due to blunt and obvious exclusion or targeting. It is due to this sort of pattern of behavior.

Jessica Livingston is apparently one of the two people that dreamed up YC. But she really gets not that much attention or credit. This is perhaps her being wise in service of her own goals and being pragmatic -- that she wants to accomplish a thing, whether she gets public credit or not. But the degree to which women, people of color and other groups get predominantly negative attention or get attention in a weird way related to this one trait is fundamentally part of the problem.

I do think her gender contributed to the Theranos debacle. I have commented on that before and I have blogged about it. But that aspect of how that plays out is Verboten. We cannot discuss it. This, too, is a form of sexism and is part of the problem.

I appreciate your participation here in this thread. It is a breath of fresh air amidst what is an otherwise mostly negative experience for me.

Post reply on HN