Cruise is opening driverless cars to the public in San Francisco

Re:Cruise is opening driverless cars to the public in San Fr... by astrange on Tuesday February 01, 2022 @07:48PM (#30172024)

Theranos didn't use the normal set of VCs because they all thought it was a scam; they raised from some random rich people who weren't professional tech VCs instead. It's unfortunate the only thing she was convicted for was defrauding them, since being accredited investors they should be able to live with that.

As for Elon, he's currently doing a bad boy anti-government bit in an attempt to make Tesla "electric cars you can buy even if you're a Republican". Since we want those people buying EVs instead of coal rolling, that's a good thing.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Cruise is opening driverless cars to the public in San Fr... by toss1 on Tuesday February 01, 2022 @08:01PM (#30172137)

>> It's unfortunate the only thing she was convicted for was defrauding them, since being accredited investors they should be able to live with that.

NO.

Investors are supposed to be able to live with all the usual risks of technology, execution, marketplace dynamics, etc.

They are NOT supposed to be OK with deliberate fraud.

If you invest at Early_Round when the tech looks promising, but then it fails to develop, CEO truthfully tells everyone what failed, the plan to overcome the failures, and you invest in Later_Round, or don't, and it ultimately fails and you lose your investment, fine.

BUT, if you invested in Early_Round and then the tech fails to develop, but the CEO straight-up lies to you and says they are "light years ahead of everyone else", shows phony endorsements from major industry players, and more so that you invest again in Later_Round, and then lose your shirt - that's fraud, and all involved in the fraud should be prosecuted, convicted, and jailed.

Anything less will create an environment where blatant lying for 100s-of-$millions is okay, and that is doomed to systemically fail.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Cruise is opening driverless cars to the public in San Fr... by jhbadger on Wednesday February 02, 2022 @04:38AM (#30175523)

But I think the point is that she wasn't convicted of endangering people's lives, which many would consider a far greater crime than just a con defrauding some gullible marks. People depended on those tests. They made choices (such as whether or not to have surgeries) based on the results.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Cruise is opening driverless cars to the public in San Fr... by toss1 on Wednesday February 02, 2022 @08:26AM (#30177164)

I agree with your point, and I definitely wonder what was the failure in prosecution that produced those not-guilty verdicts. Not only was people's health involved with the fraudulent testing service, but the healthcare consumers did not in any way sign up for that.

The specific comment that I was responding to seemed to say it should be okay to defraud Accredited Investors should be "able to live with that".

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Cruise is opening driverless cars to the public in San Fr... by astrange on Tuesday February 01, 2022 @08:32PM (#30172330)

If you're selling a pump and dump like crypto or Uber, you want the CEO to lie to you because it shows he's good at lying! Then you all go out and lie with him, then Softbank gives you a billion dollars for no reason.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Cruise is opening driverless cars to the public in San Fr... by CPLX on Wednesday February 02, 2022 @04:48AM (#30175575)

Tim Draper wasn’t random.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Cruise is opening driverless cars to the public in San Fr... by anamax on Wednesday February 02, 2022 @05:12PM (#30184816)

How many other SV VCs joined Draper? FWIW, I heard that Ellison also put in some early money. If that was it, then will you agree that "mostly outside of the usual SV crowd." is accurate

How many rounds did Draper participate in? If Draper stopped after the first round or two, then it "got some early money from SV but everything else came from outsiders."

[ Parent | on HN ]