News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Elizabeth Holmes found guilty by dooglius on Monday January 03, 2022 @07:43PM (#29789387)
What does "authentic" mean here? Isn't company swag just the company emailing a logo to 3rd parties who print it on shirts/whatever?
Re:Elizabeth Holmes found guilty by sharkweek on Monday January 03, 2022 @07:45PM (#29789424)
I try my best to only procure swag that was actually distributed by the company at time of operation. As an example, you can buy "joke" Enron t-shirts, which I wouldn't be interested in, but some authentic team building event-specific shirt distributed to 50ish people? Oh baby, I'm all ears.

I think that's part of the fun, hunting for the original stuff.

Re:Elizabeth Holmes found guilty by F_J_H on Monday January 03, 2022 @08:03PM (#29789634)
Former Enron employee here - I have some swag I was given when I first started (lunch kit, values booklet, etc. Also have some golf shirts and baseball caps.

Worth anything?

Re:Elizabeth Holmes found guilty by dylan604 on Monday January 03, 2022 @08:56PM (#29790162)
>values booklet

Very very very curious of the text contained within.

Re:Elizabeth Holmes found guilty by celticninja on Monday January 03, 2022 @09:50PM (#29790672)
This page intentionally left blank.
Re:Elizabeth Holmes found guilty by threwawasy1228 on Monday January 03, 2022 @08:30PM (#29789911)
Absolutely, you could get some great value for that on ebay, or grailed.com
Re:Elizabeth Holmes found guilty by ghostbrainalpha on Monday January 03, 2022 @08:03PM (#29789628)
Can you guys share your collection? I'm not a part of this hobby yet, but I'm immediately on board.

Would you be interested in an unreleased "Cosby Show" lego set that was supposed to come out right before he got cancelled?

Re:Elizabeth Holmes found guilty by kingcharles on Tuesday January 04, 2022 @01:19AM (#29791981)
> Would you be interested in an unreleased "Cosby Show" lego set that was supposed to come out right before he got cancelled?

Can't tell if serious. If serious, was this out of Lego Ideas (Cuusoo)? [I worked on the Back to the Future DeLorean set with the designers in Denmark]

Re:Elizabeth Holmes found guilty by k12sosse on Monday January 03, 2022 @08:41PM (#29790034)
Is that where we are today? Admitting[0] to drugging women, and then sexually assaulting them under the influence qualifies as 'cancelling'? Weird.

0: https://www.cnn.com/2015/07/07/us/bill-cosby-quaaludes-sexua...

Re:Elizabeth Holmes found guilty by dang on Tuesday January 04, 2022 @12:55PM (#29797656)
I'm sure it was unintentional, but your comment here is where the thread went haywire. Maybe it would be helpful to explain why.

The discussion about disgraced-public-figure memorabilia was certainly offtopic, but it was offtopic in a whimsical and unpredictable way. That's ok on HN because it's interesting. What's not interesting, and is the bad kind of offtopicness, is turning the thread into a generic argument about some inflammatory thing that has already had countless flamewars. If you review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html, you'll see that we have several rules that are intended to act as flame retardant against this kind of thing:

"Eschew flamebait. Avoid unrelated controversies and generic tangents."

"Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith."

"Please don't pick the most provocative thing in an article or post to complain about in the thread. Find something interesting to respond to instead."

The high-indignation, high-repetition flamewar topics are like black holes that suck in threads that swerve too close to them. Since they're so repetitive (and generally so nasty), they're definitely not what HN is for, so we should all try to steer clear of them.

https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...

Re:Elizabeth Holmes found guilty by rfw300 on Monday January 03, 2022 @09:44PM (#29790623)
Not to put words in OP’s mouth, but I think they were using “cancel” descriptively, not pejoratively. I don’t think there was a suggestion he didn’t deserve to be cancelled, just that he was.
Re:Elizabeth Holmes found guilty by ghostbrainalpha on Tuesday January 04, 2022 @12:11PM (#29797102)
It's my fault for not being more clear with my language.

But I actually meant "literally" cancelled. The Lego set was planned to come out with an actual REBOOT of the Cosby Show, which was cancelled in the traditional meaning of the word, like the TV did not go to air.

https://tvseriesfinale.com/tv-show/nbc-kills-new-bill-cosby-....

Re:Elizabeth Holmes found guilty by dragonwriter on Tuesday January 04, 2022 @12:15PM (#29797166)
> Not to put words in OP’s mouth, but I think they were using “cancel” descriptively, not pejoratively.

If that was the intent, it was a pretty big mistake to use “before he got cancelled” instead of “before the show got cancelled”. The former construct in modern usage is pretty exclusively used for pejorative references to actions attributed to “cancel culture”.

Re:Elizabeth Holmes found guilty by filoleg on Monday January 03, 2022 @09:44PM (#29790625)
“Canceling” means removal of support and denouncement of a public figure, justified or not. In Bill Cosby’s case, it was absolutely justified, as he himself admitted to his wrongdoings. What issue do you have with that term being used to describe what happened?
Re:Elizabeth Holmes found guilty by tomjakubowski on Tuesday January 04, 2022 @12:37AM (#29791796)
I can only speak for myself but I can't say I've ever seen anyone talk about someone having been "canceled" unless they objected to the person losing their stature or were making a joke.
Re:Elizabeth Holmes found guilty by dijit on Tuesday January 04, 2022 @01:53AM (#29792134)
Cancelling is what happens to TV shows when they stop airing or being produced.

That was the meaning before “cancel culture” and was the intent of the parent.

I didn’t at all read it the way you did, maybe I’m older than you and I’ve seen more shows cancelled. (Firefly, for a famous enough example)

Re:Elizabeth Holmes found guilty by filoleg on Tuesday January 04, 2022 @03:36PM (#29800075)
Have you missed the entire #MeToo movement? Because people were cheering themselves on for (justifiably) canceling Harvey Weinstein using that exact same word to refer to the actions taken against him.
Re:Elizabeth Holmes found guilty by inopinatus on Tuesday January 04, 2022 @01:43AM (#29792087)
Well, now you have.
Re:Elizabeth Holmes found guilty by jasonfarnon on Monday January 03, 2022 @09:53PM (#29790705)
He admits nothing of the sort in your link. Maybe read the link you offered others.
[dead]
Re:Elizabeth Holmes found guilty by dang on Tuesday January 04, 2022 @01:03PM (#29797783)
No doubt users flagged it because of the name-calling and snark. You shouldn't be posting like that here.
Re:Elizabeth Holmes found guilty by alphabetting on Monday January 03, 2022 @08:21PM (#29789813)
Would seriously love to hear about your most prized items in this shitco collection
Re:Elizabeth Holmes found guilty by Maursault on Monday January 03, 2022 @08:31PM (#29789916)
> As an example, you can buy "joke" Enron t-shirts, which I wouldn't be interested in

I would not be interested in authentic Theranos swag, but I would pay a lot for a new knockoff mock turtleneck with the old MPlayer logo on it. Now I can't even find the old MPlayer logo anymore.

Re:Elizabeth Holmes found guilty by ImaCake on Tuesday January 04, 2022 @02:36AM (#29792361)
You could try the old revisions on wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MPlayer&oldid=790...
Re:Elizabeth Holmes found guilty by rozap on Tuesday January 04, 2022 @12:13PM (#29797140)
Other people have commented, but I'd also enjoy a post or album of your most prized dead company swag artifacts.

I worked for a "hot" a16z startup just out of college, with a trendy office and the :rocket: :moon: vibe. They went under a few years after I bailed, but I still wear the t-shirt because it makes me chuckle.

In a strange twist of fate, I decided to exercise my few options, and I had to mail my stock exercise notice to some place with a check for ~$2500 to purchase them. USPS lost the letter and saved me $2500.

Re:Elizabeth Holmes found guilty by VWWHFSfQ on Monday January 03, 2022 @07:45PM (#29789420)
This is some of the scammiest markets of all time.

Hey OP, I got a Theranos-branded mug I can drop-ship you from Alibaba. $800 OBO

Re:Elizabeth Holmes found guilty by miohtama on Monday January 03, 2022 @08:01PM (#29789602)
What you do not have is called provenance :)
Re:Elizabeth Holmes found guilty by brandall10 on Monday January 03, 2022 @08:05PM (#29789654)
Just out of curiosity, how does one prove provenance?

I’d think the only way is to be the original owner (ie proof of employment at the company), but even then, given such a hot marketplace it would be super easy to just purchase and resell knockoffs.

Re:Elizabeth Holmes found guilty by hyperbovine on Monday January 03, 2022 @08:21PM (#29789819)
> Just out of curiosity, how does one prove provenance?

The same way they do it with art ... research.

Re:Elizabeth Holmes found guilty by brandall10 on Tuesday January 04, 2022 @12:23AM (#29791714)
But with art there is only one work produced by an artist, or if a series, probably some way to properly id it based on a number of factors.

With say a sweatshirt produced by a third party based on some digital stencil art, do you know for sure the one you're receiving was printed by the company and given to an employee/customer? Literally hundreds, possibly thousands would be in circulation. How would you be able to distinguish that from say something a former employee w/ access to the original art data having it reprinted?

Re:Elizabeth Holmes found guilty by rbobby on Monday January 03, 2022 @07:44PM (#29789411)
Shhhhhh! You'll disturb the market!
Re:Elizabeth Holmes found guilty by rot13xor on Monday January 03, 2022 @10:59PM (#29791137)
I assume you could buy the stuff from the company's bankruptcy auction or when it gets auctioned off by the Feds like in the case of Martin Shkreli's exclusive Wu Tang album.