13 ms·

Theranos? All those cases of neglected security when data leaked and/or people killed themselves over scams?

kumarvvr 3y ago
Theranos is an outright fraud. Not the product of getting things done on fast track. They knew things could not be done and kept up the charade for long enough to profit off of it, and hopefully get away.
- ClumsyPilot 3y ago
  > Theranos is an outright fraud. Not the product of getting things done on fast track Theranos is product of the same culture. Company founder chases a goal they do not understand, and convinces investors its right around the corner. In actuality they have no clue. There is no foundamental difference between theranos diagnosis and tesla autopilot. The only reason we call theranos fraud is that we know conclusively that their goal is impossible. We have not yet accepted that autopilot is.
  - throwbigdata 3y ago
    [flagged]
  - ftrobro 3y ago
    > we know conclusively that their goal is impossible No we only know that their approach was wrong. Here is a preprint of a paper describing detection of 12 different types of cancer from a single drop of blood: https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-2025767/v1 https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-2025767/v1
    - civilitty 3y ago
      No, we know for a fact it is impossible. The problem isn’t the volume of blood, it’s that blood drawn from finger capillaries is not a representative sample for diagnostic purposes. There are plenty of tests that are even more sensitive, but they require a proper sample drawn directly from a vein or artery.
  - some_random 3y ago
    Elizabeth Holmes was not convicted of fraud and sentenced to eleven and a quarter years in prison because her company was a bad investment, no matter how much tech "journalists" want you to believe. She's going to prison because she committed boring financial fraud. If she was truthful to investors about the state of her company and her technology, she never would have received funding. Claiming that your technology will totally be ready in 6 months and will change the world is one thing, saying that it's in secret use by the US Military in Afghanistan onboard medevac helicopters is another.
  - adql 3y ago
    >There is no foundamental difference between theranos diagnosis and tesla autopilot. But we're talking about submarine that already dived, not something that never had a chance of working in the first place
  - robertlagrant 3y ago
    > Company founder chases a goal they do not understand, and convinces investors its right around the corner. In actuality they have no clue. This can be said for many, many successful companies. Your category is too wide.
- PinguTS 3y ago
  Really? Think another way: MVP. MVP is a big in the startup scene. No startup tells you how they made there MVP. Most of them think, if I get enough investment, if I get enough customers, then I will make it better. But until now the other way is just enough for my MVP. So some would call it MVP and others would call it fraud. Until it is really being implemented as advertised.
  - KptMarchewa 3y ago
    V stands for viable.
  - kumarvvr 3y ago
    A medical product that compromises accracy is neither viable, nor the minimum nor really a product. An MVP means something that has just about the core functionality, with bells and whistles and newer use cases coming on later.
underdeserver 3y ago
As far as I remember the Theranos people used standard commercial tests, and sold the results as coming from their magic device. So the results were solid - the fraud was elsewhere. I might be remembering this wrong.
- andix 3y ago
  They used the commercial devices far outside specification (with too small amounts of blood), which made the results unreliable.
- licebmi__at__ 3y ago
  No expert, but as I have read and understand, theres a catch. Theranos promised all kinds of tests drawing minimal blood, and they performed the tests using commercial equipment but with less blood than what these equipment is meant to use. So the results were not actually solid.
berniedurfee 3y ago
I agree. With software being ever more embedded in our daily lives and ability to function in society, the stakes are very high, even in domains outside of physical products. Social media has shown to be pretty destructive. I don’t think there are many low stakes areas for software. It’s all impactful and potentially harmful at scale.

Theranos is an outright fraud. Not the product of getting things done on fast track. They knew things could not be done and kept up the charade for long enough to profit off of it, and hopefully get away.

ClumsyPilot 3y ago
> Theranos is an outright fraud. Not the product of getting things done on fast track Theranos is product of the same culture. Company founder chases a goal they do not understand, and convinces investors its right around the corner. In actuality they have no clue. There is no foundamental difference between theranos diagnosis and tesla autopilot. The only reason we call theranos fraud is that we know conclusively that their goal is impossible. We have not yet accepted that autopilot is.
- throwbigdata 3y ago
  [flagged]
- ftrobro 3y ago
  > we know conclusively that their goal is impossible No we only know that their approach was wrong. Here is a preprint of a paper describing detection of 12 different types of cancer from a single drop of blood: https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-2025767/v1 https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-2025767/v1
  - civilitty 3y ago
    No, we know for a fact it is impossible. The problem isn’t the volume of blood, it’s that blood drawn from finger capillaries is not a representative sample for diagnostic purposes. There are plenty of tests that are even more sensitive, but they require a proper sample drawn directly from a vein or artery.
- some_random 3y ago
  Elizabeth Holmes was not convicted of fraud and sentenced to eleven and a quarter years in prison because her company was a bad investment, no matter how much tech "journalists" want you to believe. She's going to prison because she committed boring financial fraud. If she was truthful to investors about the state of her company and her technology, she never would have received funding. Claiming that your technology will totally be ready in 6 months and will change the world is one thing, saying that it's in secret use by the US Military in Afghanistan onboard medevac helicopters is another.
- adql 3y ago
  >There is no foundamental difference between theranos diagnosis and tesla autopilot. But we're talking about submarine that already dived, not something that never had a chance of working in the first place
- robertlagrant 3y ago
  > Company founder chases a goal they do not understand, and convinces investors its right around the corner. In actuality they have no clue. This can be said for many, many successful companies. Your category is too wide.
PinguTS 3y ago
Really? Think another way: MVP. MVP is a big in the startup scene. No startup tells you how they made there MVP. Most of them think, if I get enough investment, if I get enough customers, then I will make it better. But until now the other way is just enough for my MVP. So some would call it MVP and others would call it fraud. Until it is really being implemented as advertised.
- KptMarchewa 3y ago
  V stands for viable.
- kumarvvr 3y ago
  A medical product that compromises accracy is neither viable, nor the minimum nor really a product. An MVP means something that has just about the core functionality, with bells and whistles and newer use cases coming on later.

underdeserver 3y ago

As far as I remember the Theranos people used standard commercial tests, and sold the results as coming from their magic device. So the results were solid - the fraud was elsewhere. I might be remembering this wrong.

andix 3y ago
They used the commercial devices far outside specification (with too small amounts of blood), which made the results unreliable.
licebmi__at__ 3y ago
No expert, but as I have read and understand, theres a catch. Theranos promised all kinds of tests drawing minimal blood, and they performed the tests using commercial equipment but with less blood than what these equipment is meant to use. So the results were not actually solid.

berniedurfee 3y ago

I agree. With software being ever more embedded in our daily lives and ability to function in society, the stakes are very high, even in domains outside of physical products. Social media has shown to be pretty destructive. I don’t think there are many low stakes areas for software. It’s all impactful and potentially harmful at scale.