3 ms·

Let me take a counterpoint, since unfortunately you've started said loop (at least for me) by saying some things I can't honestly agree with. Primarily, "I wou

Let me take a counterpoint, since unfortunately you've started said loop (at least for me) by saying some things I can't honestly agree with. Primarily, "I would rather miss on a big bet than win on a tiny one" Since I see this not as "winning a big bet" so much as e.g. "winning a big bet on Enron." The fact that you summarize "if holmes did something horrible and the internals rot out" as "that sucks" demonstrates the difference in our views. That's not a "that sucks" to me, that's a "bring down the goddamn hammer." I've seen techs I respect and look up to leagues beyond anyone involved in theranos leadership, not even just speaking of Holmes, but they aren't given a FRACTION of the leeway I think Theranos has gotten for consistent breaches of trust, integrity, and legality. Theranos is not an "I told you so" for me, it's an example of how different the playing field is for different people, and _THAT_ pisses me off far more than any amount of angry birds rebuilding. This next statement won't earn me any allies here, but after significant contemplation I've come to the conclusion I hope they fail, because otherwise conveys (yet again) the message that you can start with one foot in a reprehensible place and still profit enormously. To be very clear, I agree with your hope that it does not poison future VC, but I hope it causes people to both look deeper and more comprehensively before leaping. I also agree that there are good people there, and I dislike the thought of them taking part in the pain, but this is part and parcel with my "there should have been more due diligence", since otherwise Theranos would likely not have scaled as far, as fast, or touched as many people as it did when it came time for that bubble to pop. To forgive such a level of misdeed because the recompence has collateral seems to me taking one step forward and two steps back.

bmer 10y ago
> it's an example of how different the playing field is for different people I really liked your response, and am curious to know if you'd be able to comment more specifically on that little bit I quoted above. What exactly is the playing field? Getting VC funding? Managing regulatory agencies' demands? Who has an advantage on the playing field? Who doesn't?
- existencebox 10y ago
  The philosophical answer would be "yes"; the pragmatic answer isn't that far off, at the risk of a cop out. All the things you suggest and more, by "playing field" I meant life, or less broadly, success in enterprise. Advantage in this case seems broadly wrought by connections and political/financial clout. (citing early Theranos board composition, funding, etc) To make my comparison stark by drastic example, many years ago I watched a friend go under trial for minor possession. Although in relative terms, the hits Theranos/Holmes will receive if some of the current investigations pan out may be larger, it seems unlikely to assume that she won't still derive such a significant windfall from her tenure in the interim and the publicity that comes along with it (good AND bad) to put her in a position in life that I assure you said friend would gladly trade for. The types of outcomes derived for these two people don't even seem to be in the same game, if we're talking playing fields. (this made even more comical given the potential breadth of impact of the respective crimes, a comparison I hope I can leave as an exercise to the reader)

bmer 10y ago

> it's an example of how different the playing field is for different people I really liked your response, and am curious to know if you'd be able to comment more specifically on that little bit I quoted above. What exactly is the playing field? Getting VC funding? Managing regulatory agencies' demands? Who has an advantage on the playing field? Who doesn't?

existencebox 10y ago
The philosophical answer would be "yes"; the pragmatic answer isn't that far off, at the risk of a cop out. All the things you suggest and more, by "playing field" I meant life, or less broadly, success in enterprise. Advantage in this case seems broadly wrought by connections and political/financial clout. (citing early Theranos board composition, funding, etc) To make my comparison stark by drastic example, many years ago I watched a friend go under trial for minor possession. Although in relative terms, the hits Theranos/Holmes will receive if some of the current investigations pan out may be larger, it seems unlikely to assume that she won't still derive such a significant windfall from her tenure in the interim and the publicity that comes along with it (good AND bad) to put her in a position in life that I assure you said friend would gladly trade for. The types of outcomes derived for these two people don't even seem to be in the same game, if we're talking playing fields. (this made even more comical given the potential breadth of impact of the respective crimes, a comparison I hope I can leave as an exercise to the reader)