4 ms·

I'm not sure what people are so pissed about (unless they are investors). A little help here? Did they cause actual medical harm to someone? Had the minilab w

by fsloth 10y ago

I'm not sure what people are so pissed about (unless they are investors). A little help here? Did they cause actual medical harm to someone? Had the minilab worked they would have had a functioning commercial service available to test and finetune the process immediately. Isn't field testing and shipping products what's important when developing new products and services? Sure, there is the chance it's a psychopath bullshit scenario from start to the end but do we have any actual proofs that this is the case?

new299 10y ago
Actually, you know what people are pissed about? Poor investments like this create a business environment where it's harder to get really useful things done. It becomes impossible to bootstrap, and then get funded because VCs a) are looking at all the wrong metrics b) make development more expensive because the money they've thrown into the sector has pushed up costs. Poor investments as an employee, that when you're looking for an interesting, innovative hard science company to work for, you're comforted by a stream of companies that have been evaluated, not on their scientific merit but on their ability to sell an image of themselves. As an employee who doesn't just want to take a pay check, but would like to actually do something useful this is frustrating. You might say "it's their money, they can spend it how they want". As far as I'm aware that's not really true. The majority of the money invested in these kinds of companies ultimately comes from Banks. It's either money created out of thin-air (and doubly diluting every dollar you own) or it's a debt owned to the banks customers.
- fsloth 10y ago
  I understand all but the last of your arguments: "the majority of the money invested in these kinds of companies ultimately comes from Banks. " I suppose from the point of view of economy this is a problem if the funds exit circulation. If, on the other hand, the funds are mostly used for payroll and purchasing goods and services to maintain the business this means the whole economy benefits. Or am I totally clueless of fundamental economics (which might be the case, computer science and physics are more familiar to me)?
  - new299 10y ago
    It's a problem with how society allocates it resources to make technological progress. Payroll goes to pay people to do something non-optimal. As for equipment, well it's great for me because I can pick up used lab equipment cheaply on eBay. But when a startup buys, say low-yield back-thinned CCD cameras and then never uses them human effort is wasted. As an aside, the startups themselves rarely purchase used equipment (how do you present it in your budget, how do you explain the increased risk that comes with buying a used piece of equipment to your investors?). So, the economy keeps functioning... but the economy is just money moving around, not necessarily people doing actually useful things. Edit: Not sure I really understand the downvote. It would be great if you'd comment directly. Particularly given I was attempting to clarify my previous comment as requested.
banachtarski 10y ago
> Sure, there is the chance it's a psychopath bullshit scenario from start to the end but do we have any actual proofs that this is the case? We have tons. You just haven't been reading the news.
- fsloth 10y ago
  "You just haven't been reading the news." No, I probably haven't in this particular instance. I don't follow US business scene that closely beyond what HN offers.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
ryanbrunner 10y ago
They had to invalidate multiple years worth of blood tests. People would have made medical judgements and decisions based on those tests that they can no longer trust. This could (and likely did) result in people not receiving appropriate care, or receiving unnecessary care due to their results being inaccurate.

by fsloth 10y ago

new299 10y ago

Actually, you know what people are pissed about? Poor investments like this create a business environment where it's harder to get really useful things done. It becomes impossible to bootstrap, and then get funded because VCs a) are looking at all the wrong metrics b) make development more expensive because the money they've thrown into the sector has pushed up costs. Poor investments as an employee, that when you're looking for an interesting, innovative hard science company to work for, you're comforted by a stream of companies that have been evaluated, not on their scientific merit but on their ability to sell an image of themselves. As an employee who doesn't just want to take a pay check, but would like to actually do something useful this is frustrating. You might say "it's their money, they can spend it how they want". As far as I'm aware that's not really true. The majority of the money invested in these kinds of companies ultimately comes from Banks. It's either money created out of thin-air (and doubly diluting every dollar you own) or it's a debt owned to the banks customers.

fsloth 10y ago
I understand all but the last of your arguments: "the majority of the money invested in these kinds of companies ultimately comes from Banks. " I suppose from the point of view of economy this is a problem if the funds exit circulation. If, on the other hand, the funds are mostly used for payroll and purchasing goods and services to maintain the business this means the whole economy benefits. Or am I totally clueless of fundamental economics (which might be the case, computer science and physics are more familiar to me)?
- new299 10y ago
  It's a problem with how society allocates it resources to make technological progress. Payroll goes to pay people to do something non-optimal. As for equipment, well it's great for me because I can pick up used lab equipment cheaply on eBay. But when a startup buys, say low-yield back-thinned CCD cameras and then never uses them human effort is wasted. As an aside, the startups themselves rarely purchase used equipment (how do you present it in your budget, how do you explain the increased risk that comes with buying a used piece of equipment to your investors?). So, the economy keeps functioning... but the economy is just money moving around, not necessarily people doing actually useful things. Edit: Not sure I really understand the downvote. It would be great if you'd comment directly. Particularly given I was attempting to clarify my previous comment as requested.

banachtarski 10y ago

> Sure, there is the chance it's a psychopath bullshit scenario from start to the end but do we have any actual proofs that this is the case? We have tons. You just haven't been reading the news.

fsloth 10y ago
"You just haven't been reading the news." No, I probably haven't in this particular instance. I don't follow US business scene that closely beyond what HN offers.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

ryanbrunner 10y ago

They had to invalidate multiple years worth of blood tests. People would have made medical judgements and decisions based on those tests that they can no longer trust. This could (and likely did) result in people not receiving appropriate care, or receiving unnecessary care due to their results being inaccurate.