Theranos founder Elizabeth Holmes jailed for fraud
Discussion
I'm not surprised they're locking her up.
The book 'Bad Blood' is very good - I found it hard to finish though because the s
t they were pulling got more and more obscene as they dug themselves into an ever deeper hole. There's a 'Swindled' podcast about it all too (good podcast if you're interested in these sorts of crimes).
The book 'Bad Blood' is very good - I found it hard to finish though because the s
t they were pulling got more and more obscene as they dug themselves into an ever deeper hole. There's a 'Swindled' podcast about it all too (good podcast if you're interested in these sorts of crimes).ecs said:
I'm not surprised they're locking her up.
The book 'Bad Blood' is very good - I found it hard to finish though because the st they were pulling got more and more obscene as they dug themselves into an ever deeper hole. There's a 'Swindled' podcast about it all too (good podcast if you're interested in these sorts of crimes).
It's also worth mentioning again the drama The Dropout, which is excellent. Amanda Seyfried plays a blinder as Elizabeth Holmes. The book 'Bad Blood' is very good - I found it hard to finish though because the s
t they were pulling got more and more obscene as they dug themselves into an ever deeper hole. There's a 'Swindled' podcast about it all too (good podcast if you're interested in these sorts of crimes).Edited by cuprabob on Thursday 13th April 08:17
cuprabob said:
Eric Mc said:
cuprabob said:
It's also worth mentioning again the drama The Dropout, which is excellent. Amanda Seyfried plays a blinder as Elizabeth Holmes.
What platform/channel is it on?Edited by cuprabob on Thursday 13th April 08:17
Glad she's banged up, hope she has an absolutely hellish time and is subsequently bankrupted.
Dr Jekyll said:
Timothy Bucktu said:
A vapourware saleswoman. A bit like a certain Mr Musk is so many ways.
That's a bit unfair on Mr Musk. His cars and rockets do kinda work, they aren't faked.
Starship should start orbital testing this month bringing 100ton payload capability. That said it's likely to explode, which is pretty normal for SpaceX test flights!
98elise said:
Dr Jekyll said:
Timothy Bucktu said:
A vapourware saleswoman. A bit like a certain Mr Musk is so many ways.
That's a bit unfair on Mr Musk. His cars and rockets do kinda work, they aren't faked.Starship should start orbital testing this month bringing 100ton payload capability. That said it's likely to explode, which is pretty normal for SpaceX test flights!
Slaav said:
JD said:
Castrol for a knave said:
The podcast is on which it is based is superb. An excellent piece of investigative journalism.
Oh excellent thanks for the tip! 
I can't believe she's still at liberty despite being convicted. The US legal system is incredibly strange to us Brits, when she eventually goes to jail will she serve the full 13yr sentence, or will she be released on (the equivalent of) licence at the halfway point like she would in the UK?
I feel sorry for her kids growing up without their mum, they never asked for this, noting that one of them was most likely conceived as a bargaining chip to keep her out of jail.
JD said:
Eric Mc said:
That's a pity.
What's the chance of these "trapped" TV programmes making it onto more mainstream channels?
More mainstream?What's the chance of these "trapped" TV programmes making it onto more mainstream channels?
Disney+ is the third largest streaming service in the UK!
It's not even the largest subscription channel.
Eric Mc said:
That is not "mainstream" in that it is not free to air.
It's not even the largest subscription channel.
Well if you're just going to entirely arbitrarily define the word then no, it's not mainstream.It's not even the largest subscription channel.
Cracking series; well worth a watch.
Edited by iphonedyou on Thursday 13th April 12:23
I think it's quite simple - number of viewers.
Of course, traditional channels are obliged by law to disclose their viewing figures. Subscription channels are not. They don't reveal the viewing figures because they don't want to. And they don't want to because they know they are low compared to traditional TV channels.
The honest thing would be for the law to be changed to force subscription channels to disclose their viewing figures - but successive governments refuse to do so because they don't want to upset them.
And they don't want to disclose their figures because they never look great compared to one of the main traditional channels.
As for Elizabeth Holmes - I've been following the story since it began to break back in 2015 and I have read "Bad Blood" by the chap who did all the really important investigative journalism on the story, John Carreyrou.
Of course, traditional channels are obliged by law to disclose their viewing figures. Subscription channels are not. They don't reveal the viewing figures because they don't want to. And they don't want to because they know they are low compared to traditional TV channels.
The honest thing would be for the law to be changed to force subscription channels to disclose their viewing figures - but successive governments refuse to do so because they don't want to upset them.
And they don't want to disclose their figures because they never look great compared to one of the main traditional channels.
As for Elizabeth Holmes - I've been following the story since it began to break back in 2015 and I have read "Bad Blood" by the chap who did all the really important investigative journalism on the story, John Carreyrou.
Eric Mc said:
I think it's quite simple - number of viewers.
Of course, traditional channels are obliged by law to disclose their viewing figures. Subscription channels are not. They don't reveal the viewing figures because they don't want to. And they don't want to because they know they are low compared to traditional TV channels.
The honest thing would be for the law to be changed to force subscription channels to disclose their viewing figures - but successive governments refuse to do so because they don't want to upset them.
And they don't want to disclose their figures because they never look great compared to one of the main traditional channels.
As for Elizabeth Holmes - I've been following the story since it began to break back in 2015 and I have read "Bad Blood" by the chap who did all the really important investigative journalism on the story, John Carreyrou.
Disney + reports its subscription figures.Of course, traditional channels are obliged by law to disclose their viewing figures. Subscription channels are not. They don't reveal the viewing figures because they don't want to. And they don't want to because they know they are low compared to traditional TV channels.
The honest thing would be for the law to be changed to force subscription channels to disclose their viewing figures - but successive governments refuse to do so because they don't want to upset them.
And they don't want to disclose their figures because they never look great compared to one of the main traditional channels.
As for Elizabeth Holmes - I've been following the story since it began to break back in 2015 and I have read "Bad Blood" by the chap who did all the really important investigative journalism on the story, John Carreyrou.
Eric Mc said:
I think it's quite simple - number of viewers.
Of course, traditional channels are obliged by law to disclose their viewing figures. Subscription channels are not. They don't reveal the viewing figures because they don't want to. And they don't want to because they know they are low compared to traditional TV channels.
The honest thing would be for the law to be changed to force subscription channels to disclose their viewing figures - but successive governments refuse to do so because they don't want to upset them.
And they don't want to disclose their figures because they never look great compared to one of the main traditional channels.
Really, who cares? If you don't want to watch streaming services then don't - millions of people do, upwards of 7 million households in the UK subscribe to Disney+.Of course, traditional channels are obliged by law to disclose their viewing figures. Subscription channels are not. They don't reveal the viewing figures because they don't want to. And they don't want to because they know they are low compared to traditional TV channels.
The honest thing would be for the law to be changed to force subscription channels to disclose their viewing figures - but successive governments refuse to do so because they don't want to upset them.
And they don't want to disclose their figures because they never look great compared to one of the main traditional channels.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff