4 ms·

Here’s two examples: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7951019 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7951019 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6349349 ht

Here’s two examples: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7951019 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7951019 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6349349 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6349349

JauntyHatAngle 8y ago
It seems from those comments there that a lot of people on here were quite sceptical to their methods from the start. There are a lump of people who appear excited in general, sure, but the people who appear to have know-how in the area are more subdued and questioning, even then. There are a fair few comments calling it garbage. Many people seem to have called it.
- zeth___ 8y ago
  Where? The only thing even remotely negative I see in the top comments is questioning why they had so many big names on the board that had nothing to do with startups, biotechnology or medicine. In hindsight it seems like a way to keep the government away by trying to bribe people in it.
  - justAnotherNET 8y ago
    That’s exactly what I saw too, and veiled accusations of sexism against people questioning things.
    - astura 8y ago
      What specific comments in those two threads have "veiled accusations of sexism?"
  - dharmab 8y ago
    There's one standout comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7951861 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7951861
    - sportyMelange 8y ago
      It's some deep state shit for sure. Senators, Kissenger, Bechtel, DOD wonks. And on the heels of Iraq and Enron. My spider sense is telling me that they tried to bank on some stolen technology, before it had a chance to ripen, and it possibly turned out to be a spiked tidbit of intellectual property, for which they lacked the degree of expertise to explicitly verify, first hand. Somewhere behind the scenes, I'd hazard a guess that some ostentatiously sensitive, seemingly profitable information was stolen or leaked as a matter of industrial/corporate espionage, but the joke was on those that would try to use it. Maybe it was rumored to have changed hands a few times, and sources and leakers were obfuscated enough to sell it. It seemed like some kind of golden goose, but was planted as bait, set to spring a trap that would explode and expose channels of corruption. Why else would so many recognizable names bet so heavily on this? Billions of dollars? Why without due dillingence? Where did the root of all this trust originate from? It reeks of an odd combination of cult intrigue, and a total fuck up in intellectual property theft. Compare it to the capacitor plague [0], to get an idea of what I'm driving at. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capacitor_plague https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capacitor_plague
- tinbad 8y ago
  “It seems from those comments there that a lot of people on here were quite sceptical to their methods from the start.” This is no different for literally every HN post.
  - TeMPOraL 8y ago
    It's cynicism, but that's hard not to contract these days. If you've been around the Internet long enough and know something about anything even remotely scientific or technical, you quickly learn that: - You can't trust scientific press releases at face value. - You definitely can't trust science reporting in media, or any kind of reporting for that fact (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gell-Mann_amnesia_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gell-Mann_amnesia_effect). - You can't trust companies not to oversell themselves, in particular startups like this, you never take them at face value. People are much less cynical when a company is open about what it's going to do and how, talking science and engineering instead of marketing & PR bullshit.
  - simias 8y ago
    Isn't that the good thing though? I know some people dislike the negativity but as long as it's constructive criticism I think it's valuable. I'll take "I think this is a bad idea because of X" over "omg this is so cool!". Of course "I think this is great because of X" is also nice. In this particular case I think the criticism was warranted, even if you try to only consider what was known at the time. "We are a new startup led by an inexperienced yougester and we have a product that does everything better and cheaper than the industry standard but we won't peer review" seems like a huge red flag. The Forbes fluff piece with strange and rather dubious claims regarding the level of skills of the founder adds a second layer of redflagging on top of that.
oculusthrift 8y ago
side note but funny to see mattis on their board considering where he ended up now
- pimmen 8y ago
  Mattis in 2016: "Man, serving on this board reflects poorly on my ability to pick out people with integrity, it even makes me look complicit in deluding people. I better choose another job to clear my name." Mattis in 2018: "Goddamnit."

JauntyHatAngle 8y ago

It seems from those comments there that a lot of people on here were quite sceptical to their methods from the start. There are a lump of people who appear excited in general, sure, but the people who appear to have know-how in the area are more subdued and questioning, even then. There are a fair few comments calling it garbage. Many people seem to have called it.

zeth___ 8y ago
Where? The only thing even remotely negative I see in the top comments is questioning why they had so many big names on the board that had nothing to do with startups, biotechnology or medicine. In hindsight it seems like a way to keep the government away by trying to bribe people in it.
- justAnotherNET 8y ago
  That’s exactly what I saw too, and veiled accusations of sexism against people questioning things.
  - astura 8y ago
    What specific comments in those two threads have "veiled accusations of sexism?"
- dharmab 8y ago
  There's one standout comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7951861 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7951861
  - sportyMelange 8y ago
    It's some deep state shit for sure. Senators, Kissenger, Bechtel, DOD wonks. And on the heels of Iraq and Enron. My spider sense is telling me that they tried to bank on some stolen technology, before it had a chance to ripen, and it possibly turned out to be a spiked tidbit of intellectual property, for which they lacked the degree of expertise to explicitly verify, first hand. Somewhere behind the scenes, I'd hazard a guess that some ostentatiously sensitive, seemingly profitable information was stolen or leaked as a matter of industrial/corporate espionage, but the joke was on those that would try to use it. Maybe it was rumored to have changed hands a few times, and sources and leakers were obfuscated enough to sell it. It seemed like some kind of golden goose, but was planted as bait, set to spring a trap that would explode and expose channels of corruption. Why else would so many recognizable names bet so heavily on this? Billions of dollars? Why without due dillingence? Where did the root of all this trust originate from? It reeks of an odd combination of cult intrigue, and a total fuck up in intellectual property theft. Compare it to the capacitor plague [0], to get an idea of what I'm driving at. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capacitor_plague https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capacitor_plague
tinbad 8y ago
“It seems from those comments there that a lot of people on here were quite sceptical to their methods from the start.” This is no different for literally every HN post.
- TeMPOraL 8y ago
  It's cynicism, but that's hard not to contract these days. If you've been around the Internet long enough and know something about anything even remotely scientific or technical, you quickly learn that: - You can't trust scientific press releases at face value. - You definitely can't trust science reporting in media, or any kind of reporting for that fact (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gell-Mann_amnesia_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gell-Mann_amnesia_effect). - You can't trust companies not to oversell themselves, in particular startups like this, you never take them at face value. People are much less cynical when a company is open about what it's going to do and how, talking science and engineering instead of marketing & PR bullshit.
- simias 8y ago
  Isn't that the good thing though? I know some people dislike the negativity but as long as it's constructive criticism I think it's valuable. I'll take "I think this is a bad idea because of X" over "omg this is so cool!". Of course "I think this is great because of X" is also nice. In this particular case I think the criticism was warranted, even if you try to only consider what was known at the time. "We are a new startup led by an inexperienced yougester and we have a product that does everything better and cheaper than the industry standard but we won't peer review" seems like a huge red flag. The Forbes fluff piece with strange and rather dubious claims regarding the level of skills of the founder adds a second layer of redflagging on top of that.

oculusthrift 8y ago

side note but funny to see mattis on their board considering where he ended up now

pimmen 8y ago
Mattis in 2016: "Man, serving on this board reflects poorly on my ability to pick out people with integrity, it even makes me look complicit in deluding people. I better choose another job to clear my name." Mattis in 2018: "Goddamnit."