4 ms·

I think Tharanos is a scam and misreported its results and capabilities. That said, your "litmus test" is dangerous and should not be used. If you had talked

I think Tharanos is a scam and misreported its results and capabilities. That said, your "litmus test" is dangerous and should not be used. If you had talked to 100 cab drivers about Uber, how many would have said it's a viable idea? Uber is actually WAY less viable than Theranos, because there are legal frameworks that made it literally illegal. Meanwhile Theranos is in a high-profit part of the medical industry, that is also (as you can see) regulated. The issue is that Theranos is a scam. That's the only issue, not any of the stuff you mention. Founder bravado exists because lots of parts of the world are stupid and wrong and done out of habit. Theranos isn't a scam due to bravado. It's a scam because it's not real. If it "happened to be" real and not a scam, your comment could read exactly the same, except it would happen to be wrong instead of right. Your generalization about startups is entirely unjustified, and makes it that much harder for people who are not running scams to actually change the world. Could I also venture a guess that you're not living in Silicon Valley? Your comment and others like it are the reason people don't change the world from the city you're living in, by creating a startup from scratch, but go and move to Silicon Valley to do it. If you have any examples of an Uber, an Airbnb, or a Tesla made in the city you're living in, go ahead and say it. These three companies have upended their respective markets (taxis, hotels, cars). You would have knifed them in their infancy, citing "founder bravado". This literally impedes progress. People shouldn't have to move to Silicon Valley to be able to change the world. None of this has ANYTHING to do with the fact that Theranos (and, to cite another example, that ultrasound charging company) are scams. They are scams ONLY because they're not real: not due to the opinions of the industries they're disrupting, and not because of bravado. Don't conflate the two.

jacalata 10y ago
Theranos was not viable because it was a scam and people in the industry thought exactly that. Unless you believe taxi drivers are all arguing that Uber doesn't actually provide rides, I don't think your argument makes sense.
- logicallee 10y ago
  I'm arguing with the post that I replied to. This person wrote: >There seems to be this bravado among founders who believe they're sticking it to all the people who say something's amiss which is a completely unfair generalization and hurts all founders, of all companies. You raise irrelevant points. But to answer you, yes, there was a time in the past when taxi drivers would have argued that Uber is a scam, yes. I did a date-range Google search, and look at this: http://observer.com/2012/10/uber-lawsuit-chicago-taxi-limousine-consumer-fraud-unlawful-practices-travis-kalanick/ http://observer.com/2012/10/uber-lawsuit-chicago-taxi-limous... "Uber Sued for Consumer Fraud and Unlawful Practices by Chicago Taxi and Limo Companies". (2012) Consumer fraud means scam. So, please, jacalata, I would like you to say: -> "All right, Taxi cab companies did accuse Uber of being a scam, i.e. of consumer fraud, in 2012. The only difference between this an Theranos is that Uber was real and Theranos is not real." I want to hear you say this, because of the part of the comment that I quoted, stating "There seems to be this bravado among founders who believe they're sticking it to all the people who say something's amiss". I'd love for you to agree that that signal or litmus test is irrelevant, and the only thing that matters is whether it's actually a scam. Theranos was actually a scam - it didn't really do what it claimed at all, for which it is under criminal (criminal!) investigation. It has nothing, zip, zero, zilch, to do with Silicon Valley or founders, or bravado, or what the industry insiders were saying.
  - CPLX 10y ago
    It should probably be noted that nearly all founder bravado is misplaced, just from a mathematical standpoint, as nearly all startup founders are helming failing businesses. Whether that is a feature or a bug I suppose is a different question.
abpavel 10y ago
>Your comment and others like it are the reason people don't change the world from the city you're living in, by creating a startup from scratch, but go and move to Silicon Valley to do it SV has advantages for startups, yes, but there is a world outside of your little pond, you know. Ola, Alibaba, Amazon, Tencent, Baidu. Even VW and Ford have excellent EV alternatives to Tesla. If change could only happen in SV, it would also be limited to SV.
- logicallee 10y ago
  I was addressing specifically Kumarski, it was not a generic "you". I was talking about the attitude he discusses. If he has an Uber, Airbnb, Tesla, etc, example, from the city he's living in, he's welcome to share. These companies are all guilty of the "bravado" he calls out. (Which has nothing to do with Theranos.)

jacalata 10y ago

Theranos was not viable because it was a scam and people in the industry thought exactly that. Unless you believe taxi drivers are all arguing that Uber doesn't actually provide rides, I don't think your argument makes sense.

logicallee 10y ago
I'm arguing with the post that I replied to. This person wrote: >There seems to be this bravado among founders who believe they're sticking it to all the people who say something's amiss which is a completely unfair generalization and hurts all founders, of all companies. You raise irrelevant points. But to answer you, yes, there was a time in the past when taxi drivers would have argued that Uber is a scam, yes. I did a date-range Google search, and look at this: http://observer.com/2012/10/uber-lawsuit-chicago-taxi-limousine-consumer-fraud-unlawful-practices-travis-kalanick/ http://observer.com/2012/10/uber-lawsuit-chicago-taxi-limous... "Uber Sued for Consumer Fraud and Unlawful Practices by Chicago Taxi and Limo Companies". (2012) Consumer fraud means scam. So, please, jacalata, I would like you to say: -> "All right, Taxi cab companies did accuse Uber of being a scam, i.e. of consumer fraud, in 2012. The only difference between this an Theranos is that Uber was real and Theranos is not real." I want to hear you say this, because of the part of the comment that I quoted, stating "There seems to be this bravado among founders who believe they're sticking it to all the people who say something's amiss". I'd love for you to agree that that signal or litmus test is irrelevant, and the only thing that matters is whether it's actually a scam. Theranos was actually a scam - it didn't really do what it claimed at all, for which it is under criminal (criminal!) investigation. It has nothing, zip, zero, zilch, to do with Silicon Valley or founders, or bravado, or what the industry insiders were saying.
- CPLX 10y ago
  It should probably be noted that nearly all founder bravado is misplaced, just from a mathematical standpoint, as nearly all startup founders are helming failing businesses. Whether that is a feature or a bug I suppose is a different question.

abpavel 10y ago

>Your comment and others like it are the reason people don't change the world from the city you're living in, by creating a startup from scratch, but go and move to Silicon Valley to do it SV has advantages for startups, yes, but there is a world outside of your little pond, you know. Ola, Alibaba, Amazon, Tencent, Baidu. Even VW and Ford have excellent EV alternatives to Tesla. If change could only happen in SV, it would also be limited to SV.

logicallee 10y ago
I was addressing specifically Kumarski, it was not a generic "you". I was talking about the attitude he discusses. If he has an Uber, Airbnb, Tesla, etc, example, from the city he's living in, he's welcome to share. These companies are all guilty of the "bravado" he calls out. (Which has nothing to do with Theranos.)