At this point, we (HN community) are just treating this like a season of Jersey Shore.
She's working her ass off to build a company with a mission far more important than email marketing or advertising or Candy Crush or blockchains.
Were they overly optimistic in their projections? Probably, but try starting a company and not being optimistic. You'll never get off the ground.
Did they not take reasonable precautions in an industry (biotech/healthcare) with serious repercussions? Absolutely. There are very real questions about her empathy and ethics.
That said, let's stop getting giddy every time Theranos (or some other startup) shows weakness. As founders — those "playing startup" excluded — it is incredibly hard. Let's have some empathy ourselves for those who have (likely) fucked up.
> She's working her ass off to build a company with a mission far more important than email marketing or advertising or Candy Crush or blockchains.
And from all accounts, she's too busy playing PR games, as opposed to treating this like a mission far more important than email marketing.
Theranos is in the business of medical testing. This is not an industry where you can half-ass your way through certification... Or where scrutiny like "Does the product you've been selling even work?" is misplaced.
Theranos could dismiss this entire charade, if they could only provide evidence that what they claim to have built actually works.
You have to understand that's a ludicrous fallacy of the excluded middle argument you're making.
There is a long way between wanting nobody to work on this problem, and thinking it's a good idea to give tens of millions of dollars to a bright but utterly inexperienced college student to work on this problem because she happened to be school friends with some VC's daughters.
> How do we invest in potentially innovative ideas in more complex fields before they have proven it out?
Honestly, you invest in carefully proving out those potentially innovative ideas before you release them. That way you have good data convince people who claim your ideas don't work.
When people deal with live samples more ethic and certifications than for IT scaming techs is expected by the stake holders .
And the cohorts of bad news on theranos, the misdoings and also the handling of PR with spin doctors does not inspire "an ethical empathy" with theranos.
VC funded startups really don't seem to be able to have any ethic. They look like psychopaths right now that use their so called hard work as an excuse for their lack in the fundamental of trustable business and respect of consumers.
Vae Victis.
Theranos may pay for a little more than their own share of wrongdoings. They may pay a tad for a broader distrust of so called "new tech" scams also known as unicorns.
The bigger you try to manipulate opinions, the more the opinion may resent you.
For now I have a solid hammer against them, I am waiting for sharp factual nails to seal their coffin.
Why hurry? It is clear they cheated the wrong people (investors) and investors are gonna provide us the nails. Polished, sharp, hurtful provided by audits and leaks.
Let's get some popcorn and tomatoes and watch the world of some selfish aristocrats burn.
I don't show sympathy to people who have no track record as researchers, have never published their data or methods for peer review, over hype all their work, and rely on cute stories to get funding rather than good work.
I'm working on a hematological microfluidic diagnostic device in a loosely related space (which actually works), and if my team had her funding we would be flying right now. Too bad we aren't attractive women with inspiring stories so we have to settle for grant funding.
>At this point, we (HN community) are just treating this like a season of Jersey Shore.
well, cabin fever until the 3rd season of "SV" is out. In the meantime have to survive on daily ration of reality show like "guess whose horn is just a plastic cone", with today episode featuring Theranos.
The problem with your logic is that it can be used to justify both legitimate innovation and any kind of snake-oil peddling. This just won't do as an argument.
She's working her ass off to build a company with a mission far more important than email marketing or advertising or Candy Crush or blockchains.
Were they overly optimistic in their projections? Probably, but try starting a company and not being optimistic. You'll never get off the ground.
Did they not take reasonable precautions in an industry (biotech/healthcare) with serious repercussions? Absolutely. There are very real questions about her empathy and ethics.
That said, let's stop getting giddy every time Theranos (or some other startup) shows weakness. As founders — those "playing startup" excluded — it is incredibly hard. Let's have some empathy ourselves for those who have (likely) fucked up.