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

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

#71

Post by Helmet » Tue, Apr 18, 2017, 11:18 PM UTC

ianamartin wrote: post #64

Helmet wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The press is creaming their pants over the Uber scandals for the same reason they creamed their collective pants over Trump. It gets clicks. But the coverage for Uber is mostly positive in sentiment. The stories about sexism at Uber are couched in the overall story about a great company doing great things, led by a great leader, and this is a setback that needs to be dealt with. Look at any of the recent stories abou…

Are you serious?

You think a glorified taxi company has put more peoples' lives in danger than a company that knowingly sold, deployed, and signed off on an health instrument and lab work that simply did not work?

An instrument and lab work that people relied on to accurately assess the contents of their blood?

An instrument and lab work that the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services said "did not comply with certificate requirements and performance standards"

and deemed a:

"immediate jeopardy to patient health and safety"

The reason that the stories about Theranos are about a "bad company doing bad things and Holmes is probably a criminal" is because they are exactly that!

Uber is a taxi company that most people enjoy using, has not fraudulently screwed people over, has at least on a surface level removed a level of racism (my roommate no longer has to ask me to flag a cab down for him btw), and can be linked to a reduction in drunk driving. Yes, their CEO is a douche, and they have a horrible company culture, but they are not systemically screwing people over like Theranos was.

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

#72

Post by ianamartin » Tue, Apr 18, 2017, 11:22 PM UTC

woofyman wrote: post #60

ianamartin wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sorry this is getting downvoted so heavily, but there's a legitimate point here about the way things are talked about here. When Uber breaks the law and does really bad things and endangers people's lives, it's questionable at best. It's fighting outdated regulations that haven't kept up with the times, artificial monopoly busting, etc. Theranos tries to apply the same kinds of tactics, and people are literally c…

>Theranos tries to apply the same kinds of tactics, and people are literally calling for Holmes to go to jail. The difference is Holmes was endangering people's health and lives. Didn't Mayer build a nursery next to her office? >you people downvoting the thread need to grow up and take a closer look at yourselves and your lives. You are a big part of the problem with gender and racial bias in our industry. Seriously?…

Uber putting unlicensed self-driven cars that run stop lights puts people in danger. Has Theranos falsified tests that people need to survive? I don't think so.

Maybe back up on that endangering people's lives, or--if I'm wrong about Theranos--at least place them as equals.

Does it matter that Mayer built a nursery? I can't see how that's not a total non sequitur.

Calling out latent sexism where people think they are being completely normal--because sexism is completely normalized in the tech community right now is exactly what I will keep doing.

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

#73

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Apr 18, 2017, 11:36 PM UTC

ianamartin wrote: post #59

propman wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think when this broke, her connection to Hillary and the Clinton Foundation kept being played. Also during that same week, news broke that Marissa Mayer hid the huge yahoo data breech from users for years and purposefully didn't take ethical actions addresssing known vulnerabilities. These are three of the most powerful self made women all of whom were heavily publicized for years. The anti-Clinton sentiment along…

At what point does positive press become "unrelenting"? This is just stupid. Are you saying that Theranos was over-hyped? If that's what you mean then just say it. This is really survivor bias talking. If something actually succeeds at delivering the moon, then there's no unrelenting positive press. There was an accurate depiction of what was going on. It's only in hindsight that you can call it hype or unrelenting.…

[deleted]

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

#74

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Apr 18, 2017, 11:39 PM UTC

Mz wrote: post #66

darawk wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. I'm curious about why you feel this way. In reading the other responses to your original comment, it is clear that most respondents disagree with you.…

I used to not hesitate to defend my views on HN. The result: I ended up rate limited, probably because as a woman, I often have a minority viewpoint. This makes me look extremely fighty merely for being willing to engage the discussion. No, I do not believe most comments here are inviting me to substantiate anything. A few are, but most actually are dismissive. That is the entire point: I am a woman with an opinion a…

[deleted]

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

#75

Post by icebraining » Tue, Apr 18, 2017, 11:41 PM UTC

Mz wrote: post #70

icebraining wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One of the differences is that men (as a group) get vastly more positive press about actual accomplishments Well, of course they do - there are many more men founding startups overall, so they'll get most of the press even if the publications were actually more likely to report women's accomplishments. With less than 20% of startups having one woman founder (Crunchbase, 2014), what do you expect the press to do?

White males commit more murders than black males. Black males typically do more time on average. It is a little like that. It isn't proportional. Jessica Livingston is one of the two people who dreamed up YC. Paul Graham soon wrangled his previous confounders in on it. I hear vastly more about the three male cofounders than I do about the one female cofounder. Nor do I ever here her get credit proportional to PG. He…

You see, sometimes one's perception of reality is just very different.

For example, you say that "I hear vastly more about the three male cofounders than I do about the one female cofounder."

I believe you - you hear what you hear. That said, I've been around HN for a while, yet I had to look up who the other male cofounders even were. Doing a search by their names, Jessica has easily three times more submissions about her than either Trevor or Robert.

And so when our perception is so different, many people will simply incorrectly assume dishonesty, because that's easier to picture. I find it unfortunate, but I don't think it can be avoided unless one's willing to be very detailed about the priors that led one to a certain conclusion rather than just state it and hope people will see it the same way.

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

#76

Post by Mz » Tue, Apr 18, 2017, 11:42 PM UTC

cblock811 wrote: post #68

Mz wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Seems like you have a martyr complex. You're fighting against something that doesn't exist. Nobody here is out to get you.

Creating a new account to attack someone is a violation of the rules and a nasty move and suggests, yeah, whoever did it is actively hostile to me.

Me recognizing that fact and not liking it is not me having a martyr complex.

Edit: If you do not have "show dead" on, you may be missing the flagged to death other comment made by their account. If so, that may be skewing your perception.

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

#77

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Apr 18, 2017, 11:42 PM UTC

cblock811 wrote: post #68

Mz wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Seems like you have a martyr complex. You're fighting against something that doesn't exist. Nobody here is out to get you.

[deleted]

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

#78

Post by woofyman » Tue, Apr 18, 2017, 11:42 PM UTC

ianamartin wrote: post #72

woofyman wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Theranos tries to apply the same kinds of tactics, and people are literally calling for Holmes to go to jail. The difference is Holmes was endangering people's health and lives. Didn't Mayer build a nursery next to her office? >you people downvoting the thread need to grow up and take a closer look at yourselves and your lives. You are a big part of the problem with gender and racial bias in our industry. Seriously?…

Uber putting unlicensed self-driven cars that run stop lights puts people in danger. Has Theranos falsified tests that people need to survive? I don't think so. Maybe back up on that endangering people's lives, or--if I'm wrong about Theranos--at least place them as equals. Does it matter that Mayer built a nursery? I can't see how that's not a total non sequitur. Calling out latent sexism where people think they are…

>Does it matter that Mayer built a nursery? I can't see how that's not a total non sequitur.

Her employees can't work from home and be with their young children while she gets an in office nursery.

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

#79

Post by darawk » Tue, Apr 18, 2017, 11:46 PM UTC

Mz wrote: post #66

darawk wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. I'm curious about why you feel this way. In reading the other responses to your original comment, it is clear that most respondents disagree with you.…

I used to not hesitate to defend my views on HN. The result: I ended up rate limited, probably because as a woman, I often have a minority viewpoint. This makes me look extremely fighty merely for being willing to engage the discussion. No, I do not believe most comments here are inviting me to substantiate anything. A few are, but most actually are dismissive. That is the entire point: I am a woman with an opinion a…

> I used to not hesitate to defend my views on HN. The result: I ended up rate limited, probably because as a woman, I often have a minority viewpoint. This makes me look extremely fighty merely for being willing to engage the discussion.

You may be totally right about why that is, but just as a counterpoint, I get rate limited all the time too :). Maybe we're both fighty.

> No, I do not believe most comments here are inviting me to substantiate anything. A few are, but most actually are dismissive. That is the entire point: I am a woman with an opinion and that can't be allowed. It is a threat to the status quo.

I respectfully disagree with that view. This is a difficult question to resolve in either direction, but I think its worth pursuing. Would you mind citing one or two particular comments you find to be dismissive?

> I have blogged about how I think her gender helped create this debacle (http://micheleincalifornia.blogspot.com/2016/05/theranos-cul...). But, I do not know how nor understand why I need to "back up" my concern that the enormous negative press here has a potential serious downside for women generally

Firstly, thanks for the link. Secondly, I don't think you have to backup the claim that it could have negative impacts for women. I think the possibility of that happening is obvious. What does require some backup is the positive assertion that people out in the world are blaming Theranos' failure on Elizabeth Holmes' gender. Personally, I have not seen evidence of that happening, but i'd be happy to be corrected on that front.

> I also do not know how on earth to get past or around the very obvious "People are being disrespectful and dismissive of me in a way that looks like sexism at work and it looks to me like proof of the very thing that worries me and... Why am I being asked to give evidence amidst this that this exact sort of thing is a problem for women?

I don't think most people here doubt that this sort of sexism happens. And that sexism exists and is harmful to women. Obviously I can't comment on your particular work situation either except to say that i'm sorry you feel that way. But I think everyone here would be interested to see if that is indeed happening in the case of Theranos. If it is happening, that's a good thing to know and to combat. But if it's not, then it's just another failed SV startup and we can all go about our day.

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

#80

Post by Mz » Tue, Apr 18, 2017, 11:55 PM UTC

darawk wrote: post #79

Mz wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I used to not hesitate to defend my views on HN. The result: I ended up rate limited, probably because as a woman, I often have a minority viewpoint. This makes me look extremely fighty merely for being willing to engage the discussion. No, I do not believe most comments here are inviting me to substantiate anything. A few are, but most actually are dismissive. That is the entire point: I am a woman with an opinion a…

> I used to not hesitate to defend my views on HN. The result: I ended up rate limited, probably because as a woman, I often have a minority viewpoint. This makes me look extremely fighty merely for being willing to engage the discussion. You may be totally right about why that is, but just as a counterpoint, I get rate limited all the time too :). Maybe we're both fighty. > No, I do not believe most comments here ar…

Generally speaking, such blame occurs as subtext, not overt assertion. This is how most exclusionary, biased social stuff works. When you can't produce affirmative evidence, then you are also dismissed. And so it goes.

It is a little like arguments I have heard that black Americans who sound obviously black can't qualify for a job because they aren't articulate enough and it isn't racism. My response to that is "George W. Bush."

Maybe not hiring "inarticulate" blacks isn't racism. But why can an inarticulate white guy get a high ranking job if being articulate is so freaking critical?

There is always some excuse or justification for an overall pattern of behavior. Yet, the pattern persists and trying to point out the pattern gets dismissed for various reasons. It is a real life version of the trope Status Quo is God.