News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:The Coverage of Theranos Is Utter Bullshit (2015) by divbzero on Sunday January 02, 2022 @12:03AM (#29765993)
At the time, that comment could easily be read as angry and irrational, posted by someone who hates on success or simply enjoys trolling. In retrospect, it’s quite possible medman77 had inside knowledge of the company.

It’s interesting to compare that against a different comment [1] made the following summer from someone with inside knowledge of the field but not of the company.

[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7951861

Re:The Coverage of Theranos Is Utter Bullshit (2015) by hitekker on Sunday January 02, 2022 @02:22PM (#29772576)
By "easily", you mean "lazily". It's one thing to assume the comment is irrational, it's another thing, and even lazier thing, to assume that the commenter hates on success or enjoys trolling.

It must be uncomfortable to see that our community was fooled. But blaming a whistleblower isn't the right coping strategy.

Re:The Coverage of Theranos Is Utter Bullshit (2015) by throwawaylinux on Monday January 03, 2022 @05:46AM (#29779400)
That time was possibly the peak for using baseless accusations of sexism to counter any criticism of women, at least in the online reddit/twitter/facebook/etc sphere. The old HN threads even have some. I feel people have been gradually getting slightly braver in standing up to this.
Re:The Coverage of Theranos Is Utter Bullshit (2015) by encryptluks2 on Sunday January 02, 2022 @02:27AM (#29766628)
You really don't need insider knowledge to make an assessment like that. You just have to learn what you look for when it comes to BS and be prepared to get some negative karma points for calling out companies due to the multiple social media PR companies they employ that use various reputation defense techniques.
Re:The Coverage of Theranos Is Utter Bullshit (2015) by tsol on Tuesday January 04, 2022 @01:51PM (#29798460)
Just because you're angry and irrational, doesn't mean that you're wrong. In fact one could argue being the only one to see the scam might itself make a lot of people angry