4 ms·

I’ve read the book — it’s excellent. And I’m not arguing that Balwani isn’t at the very least, gross on a lot of levels. But that book and the other reporting (

I’ve read the book — it’s excellent. And I’m not arguing that Balwani isn’t at the very least, gross on a lot of levels. But that book and the other reporting (Rebecca Jarvis’ podcast for ABC News, Nick Bilton’s stories for Vanity Fair) seem to indicate that she was the boss/leader at Theranos. That isn’t to say there couldn’t be some bad things that happened in her relationships that led to diminished capacity defense, but the burden is on the defense to prove that. Based on what we know right now, I think any claims that “I committed fraud because I was abused” — assuming that is the defense — trivializes the real men and women who suffer from abuse every single day and don’t do the things Holmes did.

perl4ever 6y ago
The phrase "based on what we know right now" seems inappropriate to me. It's like when people talk about the covid epidemic based on the numbers that we have to date, implicitly assuming that there will be no new cases tomorrow. Even though we don't actually have tomorrow's information today, we can be sure there will be something coming.
- stickfigure 6y ago
  We have no idea what they're going to say in the courtroom, not even the people who read Carreyrou's book. Hell, we don't even know to what extent Covid is transmitted via droplets vs aerosols. "Based on what we know right now" is highly appropriate preface for claims about an uncertain future. I wish more people would use that phrase. I, personally, have popcorn in hand.
  - filmgirlcw 6y ago
    Thank you! And like you, I’m also here with the popcorn. #TeamDrama I have a $500 bet that Holmes won’t serve any jail time (not that she won’t be convicted and putting aside any plea deals), so I have a vested interest in whatever her defense is as working. But on a personal level, I think she’s a terrible person and I’m just excited to watch the case unfold.
    - growlist 6y ago
      It's going to be interesting to see how the defence handle her apparently pretty rapid recovery to good mental health post-Theranos, i.e. new boyfriend, posting smiley selfies etc.
      - c22 6y ago
        Hmm, never thought of posting selfies as a sign of good mental health before...
  - perl4ever 6y ago
    The point is a general epistemological one. What I was trying to say is that there is sometimes an implicit contradiction when people say "based on what we know right now". In a philosophical way, you could say that "based on what we know right now", the sun has always risen in the morning, but we do not know that it will rise tomorrow. But then, to plan as if it won't, is not really "based on what we know right now". Claiming something or other will be different about the sun tomorrow might, seem plausible to one person and absurd to another; that can be debated. But for it to suddenly vanish without a trace is not "based on what we know right now". Pretty much anything else is more likely. What's the meaning of saying "we have no idea" as if someone was predicting it? I am not predicting it.
- filmgirlcw 6y ago
  I don’t understand how noting that something is based on conjecture and not on any allegations in the public record (the earlier hearing that first made the mental health claims are under seal) is inappropriate. Of course more information will be made public in the future! You can disagree with my personal conjecture about what a defense will be — and I could absolutely be wrong, I’m not her attorney and I don’t work for the government. And that’s exactly why I’m making it clear that my personal opinion is based on the information we do have. You don’t have to agree with my opinion but it calling it inappropriate to even have one is weird.
  - perl4ever 6y ago
    I didn't see who was making any specific conjecture. When you know there is going to be relevant information coming out, prejudging as if there isn't going to be, is just wrong. Not in the sense of injustice, but in the sense that there's no realistic chance of being correct. I don't think that is a "weird" outlook. I am making no prejudgment on whether her actions were justified, just that context matters, and in this instance, context will be provided later. The compulsive need to judge without information rather than waiting is "weird" to me personally, but I acknowledge and accept it's normal human behavior.

perl4ever 6y ago

The phrase "based on what we know right now" seems inappropriate to me. It's like when people talk about the covid epidemic based on the numbers that we have to date, implicitly assuming that there will be no new cases tomorrow. Even though we don't actually have tomorrow's information today, we can be sure there will be something coming.

stickfigure 6y ago
We have no idea what they're going to say in the courtroom, not even the people who read Carreyrou's book. Hell, we don't even know to what extent Covid is transmitted via droplets vs aerosols. "Based on what we know right now" is highly appropriate preface for claims about an uncertain future. I wish more people would use that phrase. I, personally, have popcorn in hand.
- filmgirlcw 6y ago
  Thank you! And like you, I’m also here with the popcorn. #TeamDrama I have a $500 bet that Holmes won’t serve any jail time (not that she won’t be convicted and putting aside any plea deals), so I have a vested interest in whatever her defense is as working. But on a personal level, I think she’s a terrible person and I’m just excited to watch the case unfold.
  - growlist 6y ago
    It's going to be interesting to see how the defence handle her apparently pretty rapid recovery to good mental health post-Theranos, i.e. new boyfriend, posting smiley selfies etc.
    - c22 6y ago
      Hmm, never thought of posting selfies as a sign of good mental health before...
- perl4ever 6y ago
  The point is a general epistemological one. What I was trying to say is that there is sometimes an implicit contradiction when people say "based on what we know right now". In a philosophical way, you could say that "based on what we know right now", the sun has always risen in the morning, but we do not know that it will rise tomorrow. But then, to plan as if it won't, is not really "based on what we know right now". Claiming something or other will be different about the sun tomorrow might, seem plausible to one person and absurd to another; that can be debated. But for it to suddenly vanish without a trace is not "based on what we know right now". Pretty much anything else is more likely. What's the meaning of saying "we have no idea" as if someone was predicting it? I am not predicting it.
filmgirlcw 6y ago
I don’t understand how noting that something is based on conjecture and not on any allegations in the public record (the earlier hearing that first made the mental health claims are under seal) is inappropriate. Of course more information will be made public in the future! You can disagree with my personal conjecture about what a defense will be — and I could absolutely be wrong, I’m not her attorney and I don’t work for the government. And that’s exactly why I’m making it clear that my personal opinion is based on the information we do have. You don’t have to agree with my opinion but it calling it inappropriate to even have one is weird.
- perl4ever 6y ago
  I didn't see who was making any specific conjecture. When you know there is going to be relevant information coming out, prejudging as if there isn't going to be, is just wrong. Not in the sense of injustice, but in the sense that there's no realistic chance of being correct. I don't think that is a "weird" outlook. I am making no prejudgment on whether her actions were justified, just that context matters, and in this instance, context will be provided later. The compulsive need to judge without information rather than waiting is "weird" to me personally, but I acknowledge and accept it's normal human behavior.