When you have too many empty suits at the top making all the decisions, then you get into a situation of the blind leading the blind. It is shocking that it can happen at such a scale.
It's frustrating for intelligent, motivated founders who do the hard work to watch vaporware competitors getting billion dollar valuations and taking all the market share right in front of them.
Too many investors don't have a clue about what real innovation/value looks like because they've never actually seen it - Most of them probably got into their position through a combination of hard hustling and luck instead of through hard work and critical thinking.
Unfortunately, hustling doesn't advance science or human knowledge.
It's quite obvious that very few are disproportionally benefiting from modern tech. Unlikely to sustain much longer. Doug Rushkoff has a good talk on this - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=87TSoqnZass There is a shorter version on BigThink.
Theranos created this alternative reality with globally famous directors in their 80s and 90s, who offered instant prestige, without being the types that would ever challenge the CEO's grasp of business details. Wow, it must a joy ride to have Dr. Kissinger on your board. Or maybe not.
When Theranos's governance proved unreal, that became sweet vindication for every Valley CEO/CFO who ever stayed up past 1 a.m. getting every last number in shape for a hectoring, detail-obsessed board meeting the next day.
The guy[0] who pointed out how ridiculous the Rolling Stone UVA rape story was while the press was eating it up, made the point that when people are told what they want to hear they don't ask many questions.
I wonder how much the Grrlpower element around this story dissuaded some obvious questions in the initial reporting around this mess.
It is possible to have not ugly reasons for finding satisfaction in seeing how this is turning out.
Whereas, schafenfreude is an emotional response tied to others success or failures. Two different things with one being clearly superior unless one is pursuing emotional highs and lows.
All this cult of personality shit that swirled around this pretty young college drop out who was supposedly a billionaire by age 30 and now is looking like the queen of vaporware is just a huge fucking set back for women who want real careers.
If all you want out of life is to be cooed at for being a media darling, go to fucking Hollywood. Stay the hell out of the business world.
I'm not trying to be confrontational here, but recently I've been having a fairly negative reaction to the happy feelings that occur when justice is served. Sometimes I think this fuels a search for justice, where punishment is almost a desired goal from the beginning. The OP also discussed the feeling of satisfaction that their world view is justified when someone gets punished. Without trying to ascribe any intent to the OP, I get very bad vibes out of relentless searches for justice where the punishment of those caught fuels a reinforcement that a certain world view is correct.
Of course this is completely blowing these feelings up out of proportion, but from small seeds grow tall trees. I have lately wondered if justice is really something we should not try to pursue.
If you mean me, I feel like this puts words in my mouth, words that I do not agree with. I am not a vindictive person. I am not taking glee in people being punished per se. But I have made my peace with the fact that when people pursue a bad path long enough, at some point, it is likely to get push back. It no longer bothers me that the pushback may involve what you are terming punishment.
But, so far, what I am hearing is that Holmes is being banned from a thing, not thrown in jail. She may find that painful, but I don't think telling her "We expect you to stop this shit that is potentially harmful to other people." is actually punishment. It is merely protecting other people.
If she cannot behave responsibly enough to provide a genuine service while getting rich, she has no God given right to do whatever the fuck she pleases.
To my mind, this is in the vein of "Your right to swing your fist ends where my face begins." If you or Ms. Holmes thinks that is a painful and excessive restriction, well, too bad, so fucking sad. It isn't being done to hurt the woman. It is being done to stop her from hurting others.
The development of governments that have a monopoly on the use of violence helped curb this. If both sides of a dispute cede their right to violence and entrust a neutral third party with dispensing justice, they can be satisfied with the outcome and save face. For obvious reasons, this leads to a much more civil society than people needing to take the law into their own hands.
In this sense, it's actually a blessing that we're inclined to feel so satisfied seeing justice done by a third party.
Maybe, but the schadenfreude is going to boil over if we ever get to see Holmes being perp-walked in her black turtleneck.
> I have lately wondered if justice is really something we should not try to pursue.
That strikes me as the perspective of somebody who leads a very comfortable life.
I've seen people do sketchy stuff which seemed obviously wrong and publicly apparent for many, many years. Sometimes it finally catches up with them, but other times it does not, and they cash out, are rewarded, and praised by others who have great respect. That is deeply unnerving.
Was she "playing business" and got in over her head?
Was it just an outright scam?
Some people have said maybe those big name directors were brought in to grease the tracks as part of a deliberate scam. Who knows?
Maybe there will be some answers if this probe turns up anything.
They streamrolled a bluff into billon dollar deals, either as a complete scam, or hoping to quietly buy the tech from a real inventor eventually.
There is the question though of at what point did they realize what they were attempting was pushing up against some fundamental limits and just wasn't going to work? Did they think they were going to pivot?
At some point a 'web of shadows and lies' would have to be construed as a scam, wouldn't it? Even if that wasn't the initial intent.
September 2013, 211 points 113 comments, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6349349
June 2014, 202 points 97 comments, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7951019
August 2014, 180 points 76 comments, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8181339
There's even a "Theranos" user account on HN that has been posting in "who's hiring" threads as far back as May 2014: https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=Theranos&next=868287...
I also don't read magazines, read newspapers, watch TV, or listen to the radio.
If your Twitter clone doesn't work, no one notices. If your "revolutionary" blood-testing device reports a false positive or false negative, it can lead to a misdiagnosis.
All of the accusations I've read revolve around everything but the the actual science, e.g. not classifying their containers as Class II, instead of Class I.
That, plus seeing the cluelessness and herd mentality of the people who are supposedly the experts at judging tech potential in this area.