41–50 of 79 posts
This title is ridiculous. He's Holmes's husband, not her "lover". They were married in 2019.
Rather than focusing on Holmes and her lover, I'd like to posit some other questions I have with this approach. Let's assume for just a minute that Holmes wasn't trying to rug pull and that she genuinely wanted Theranos to succeed in it's stated mission. Wouldn't a foundational invention like this 20-30 years ago come out of a university lab? It feels like VC funding is not the right vehicle for the kind of developme…
Doesn't look like any smart money on this one yet, but there's something bold about it. It's like Nassim Taleb's thing that you hire the ugly surgeon. This is one hideous surgeon. Fraud seems near impossible here. [Edit: a lot of thoughtful responses but downvoting?]
Matt Levine (financial columnist) often makes the point (or joke) that in fund management there a tendency to reward (as in: they get more money to manage) people who lost a lot of money, on the basis that they did manage to have a lot of money to start with, make bold bets, and should at least have learned something at this point.
Second time entrepreneurs are more likely to raise capital even if their first venture failed and spectacularly so.
Adam Neumann got funded by a16z(their largest?) despite all the governance issues at Wework , there are many other examples of high profile and regular entrepreneurs getting funding .
Awful title; this is her husband, not her "lover."
2: why is lover so bad?
I see the hate in this discussion for the phrase, but I don't get it.
Is it some modern thing where we're supposed to separate the concept of marriage from sex due to asexual types or some such?
legitimate question : I don't get it. I'm more than willing to avoid the use of lover, but someone at least explain it to me.
would more casual concepts like 'defacto' or 'commonlaw' be better? 'life-partner'? 'co-life strategist' ?
This title is ridiculous. He's Holmes's husband, not her "lover". They were married in 2019.
Technically they never married, which is why the original article uses a bunch of other phrases to describe their relationship, but agreed that the change from "partner" to "lover" makes the title needlessly provocative. "Partner" was fine.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Technically they never married, which is why the original article uses a bunch of other phrases to describe their relationship, but agreed that the change from "partner" to "lover" makes the title needlessly provocative. "Partner" was fine.
I’m guessing it was trying to distinguish between him and her previous business partners?
This title is ridiculous. He's Holmes's husband, not her "lover". They were married in 2019.
https://people.com/elizabeth-holmes-relationship-billy-evans...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Technically they never married, which is why the original article uses a bunch of other phrases to describe their relationship, but agreed that the change from "partner" to "lover" makes the title needlessly provocative. "Partner" was fine.
I’m guessing it was trying to distinguish between him and her previous business partners?
I see the same thing happening in Spanish - no one can say “novio/a” anymore. Why?
Awful title; this is her husband, not her "lover."
1: they were never married 2: why is lover so bad? I see the hate in this discussion for the phrase, but I don't get it. Is it some modern thing where we're supposed to separate the concept of marriage from sex due to asexual types or some such? legitimate question : I don't get it. I'm more than willing to avoid the use of lover, but someone at least explain it to me. would more casual concepts like 'defacto' or 'co…
Partner = main romantic connection.
Rather than focusing on Holmes and her lover, I'd like to posit some other questions I have with this approach. Let's assume for just a minute that Holmes wasn't trying to rug pull and that she genuinely wanted Theranos to succeed in it's stated mission. Wouldn't a foundational invention like this 20-30 years ago come out of a university lab? It feels like VC funding is not the right vehicle for the kind of developme…
I agree that the modern Silicon Valley model of VC funding has been spoiled by SaaS startups, where the capital expense is smaller, the timeline to exit is shorter, and pivots are easier. It is not great for deeptech innovation because those require more capital, time, and are more technology-constrained than software. Ironically, modern VC was developed to support semiconductor startups (1970s-90s), but has drifted from that technology-heavy origin.