5 ms·
It should be legal for 2 parties to do some risky business together if they trust each other, and are both aware of the risks. It is hard to distinguish it fro
by bmacho 3y ago
It should be legal for 2 parties to do some risky business together if they trust each other, and are both aware of the risks.
It is hard to distinguish it from frauds (e.g. what Holmes and Theranos committed) nevertheless it should be legal.
- selcuka 3y ago> It is hard to distinguish it from frauds (e.g. what Holmes and Theranos committed) nevertheless it should be legal. I believe there is a difference between promising something that you know can't be done, and promising something that can be done, but failing to do it within time/budget.
- Someone 3y agoThere is, and it’s easy to discriminate between the obviously possible and the obvious frauds, but there is a gray area where that’s hard. Even promising something that can’t be done need not be fraud because the developer can have reasonable arguments that it can’t be done yet. Even if the developer has doubts as to whether they will be able to do it, or even whether it actually is possible, it’s not fraud if they clearly outline the risks.
- selcuka 3y ago> Even promising something that can’t be done need not be fraud because the developer can have reasonable arguments that it can’t be done yet. True, but that wasn't the case with Theranos. Every domain expert knew that you couldn't possibly analyse everything using a drop of blood, because blood is not homogeneous, so one drop from your left arm is not necessarily the same as another drop from your right arm. This is a fundamental limitation of human anatomy, not something to do with the current state of technology.
- jacquesm 3y agoThe difference lies in the original intent, which is super hard to figure out even after the fact.
- rmbyrro 3y agoTheranos was a terrible comparison