U.S. Files Criminal Charges Against Theranos’s Elizabeth Holmes, Ramesh Balwani • Hacker News Board

Re: U.S. Files Criminal Charges Against Theranos’s Elizabeth Holmes, Ramesh Balwani

#531

Post by paulddraper » Wed, Jun 20, 2018, 12:07 AM UTC

telchar wrote: post #483

paulddraper wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the US can’t retrospectively prosecute bankers AFAIK there were poor decisions and bad investments but not straight up fraud. Nobody needed to be jailed; there were a few that needed to be allowed to fail.

You're forgetting robo-signing foreclosure affidavits in the wake of the financial crisis. That's potentially hundreds of thousands of counts of fraud. The banks were only forced to settle, and were not prosecuted. [0] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_United_States_foreclosure...

I thought the robo-signing meant fraud for mortgage companies not banks. But perhaps I was wrong.

Re: U.S. Files Criminal Charges Against Theranos’s Elizabeth Holmes, Ramesh Balwani

#532

Post by SilasX » Wed, Jun 20, 2018, 11:56 PM UTC

learc83 wrote: post #464

SilasX wrote: post #459

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, being skeptical about a 19 year old is easy. The hard part is to do it in a way consistent with the rhetoric about “fake it till you make it”/“it’ll all work out”/“all self doubt is impostor syndrome”.

It's not hard if you just don't tell people to fake it till they make it in the first place. There's a sizeable contingent on HN that is sceptical of that mindset in general, which was my point.

No. There's a sizeable contingent of people who will call out specific ideas as being "obviously BS", but who lack the insight to realize the dissonance with their mentality of "fake it till you make it". People who actually have a general answer for "when not to fake it, and give up instead" are the extreme exception.

Re: U.S. Files Criminal Charges Against Theranos’s Elizabeth Holmes, Ramesh Balwani

#533

Post by grigjd3 » Mon, Jun 25, 2018, 11:35 PM UTC

learc83 wrote: post #285

grigjd3 wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Funny, the PhD taught me to keep what I say fairly limited. On the other hand, I find generalists will say all kinds of crap that "sounds true" but they have at best a weak theory and a couple of anecdotes.

You seem to be making an argument for a weak theory with a couple of anecdotes.

There is something kind of meta there, isn't there? ;)