Theranos founder Elizabeth Holmes jailed for fraud
Discussion
ScotHill said:
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.
It is a bit of an antiquated view, even though Eric does have a soft spot for Auntie.
Eric Mc said:
ScotHill said:
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+.
That's not the same thing as revealing viewing figures.JD said:
Disney+ costs half as much to watch than "free to air" channels.
There is no such thing as free to air.
There is, insofar as was meant by Eric.There is no such thing as free to air.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-to-air
iphonedyou said:
JD said:
Disney+ costs half as much to watch than "free to air" channels.
There is no such thing as free to air.
There is, insofar as was meant by Eric.There is no such thing as free to air.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-to-air
98elise said:
iphonedyou said:
JD said:
Disney+ costs half as much to watch than "free to air" channels.
There is no such thing as free to air.
There is, insofar as was meant by Eric.There is no such thing as free to air.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-to-air
JD said:
98elise said:
iphonedyou said:
JD said:
Disney+ costs half as much to watch than "free to air" channels.
There is no such thing as free to air.
There is, insofar as was meant by Eric.There is no such thing as free to air.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-to-air
Given the number of start-ups that don't last, are based on speculation, and hope, in an around Silicon Valley, that fold within a few years because of iffy science, what's the difference between them and Theranos? She was excellent at marketing, something that many of the start-ups could learn a lot from.
If she had not been so successful with gaining the rich and famous, who had a lot of self-conceit, to part with their money, would there have been a court case? Billionaires lose millions because they didn't take due diligence. Am I supposed to feel sorry for them?
The media seem obsessed with what they, rather ironically, suggest is her obsession with her voice timbre and dress.
There has been nothing to suggest her passion for her idea was false. The company, in part, collapsed because of her lack of ability beyond presentation. The product was faulty. On top of that, she could not manage a start-up, nor, it would appear, any SME. Avie Tevenian said he was frustrated by the lack of success, and then said, 'You expect that from a start-up that has not been done [before].'
It seems a little as if it is just the amount of money that was the problem. Had small investors lost their money, then there would have been no criminal court case.
'When I worked for Steve Jobs, I saw some strange things, but she took it to a new level..' A difference in degree rather than kind?
If she had not been so successful with gaining the rich and famous, who had a lot of self-conceit, to part with their money, would there have been a court case? Billionaires lose millions because they didn't take due diligence. Am I supposed to feel sorry for them?
The media seem obsessed with what they, rather ironically, suggest is her obsession with her voice timbre and dress.
There has been nothing to suggest her passion for her idea was false. The company, in part, collapsed because of her lack of ability beyond presentation. The product was faulty. On top of that, she could not manage a start-up, nor, it would appear, any SME. Avie Tevenian said he was frustrated by the lack of success, and then said, 'You expect that from a start-up that has not been done [before].'
It seems a little as if it is just the amount of money that was the problem. Had small investors lost their money, then there would have been no criminal court case.
'When I worked for Steve Jobs, I saw some strange things, but she took it to a new level..' A difference in degree rather than kind?
I'm torn on this. I think she was pretty brilliant and people threw money at her. At some point she couldn't full fill the expectations of those around her.
But the point at which she believed she could do what she said, and the investors weren't understanding the science become blurry for me. When you look now at break throughs with early cancer testing methods she was advocating, you wonder if the financial world have just left her alone whether she could have been a plus to society, or whether she was actually a bad person trying to defraud everyone.
I have little faith in a judge being able to make that distinction, lesser still in America.
But the point at which she believed she could do what she said, and the investors weren't understanding the science become blurry for me. When you look now at break throughs with early cancer testing methods she was advocating, you wonder if the financial world have just left her alone whether she could have been a plus to society, or whether she was actually a bad person trying to defraud everyone.
I have little faith in a judge being able to make that distinction, lesser still in America.
hiccy18 said:
I think you're ignoring or forgetting the fact that she promised a miracle healthcare product, she preyed on people's hopes of a healthier life, patients were given faked results. She is literally a snake oil salesman.
This. Just because other people have got away (or got away more lightly) with fraud in different sectors doesn't mean she should get away with it too. The testing process didn't work, she knew damn well it didn't work, yet she was happily taking billions from investors while lying her face off about it. Anyone taking money for known-faulty testing, then deliberately sending back bulls
t results used to make life-changing medical decisions deserves to be thrown in jail.Derek Smith said:
Given the number of start-ups that don't last, are based on speculation, and hope, in an around Silicon Valley, that fold within a few years because of iffy science, what's the difference between them and Theranos? She was excellent at marketing, something that many of the start-ups could learn a lot from.
If she had not been so successful with gaining the rich and famous, who had a lot of self-conceit, to part with their money, would there have been a court case? Billionaires lose millions because they didn't take due diligence. Am I supposed to feel sorry for them?
The media seem obsessed with what they, rather ironically, suggest is her obsession with her voice timbre and dress.
There has been nothing to suggest her passion for her idea was false. The company, in part, collapsed because of her lack of ability beyond presentation. The product was faulty. On top of that, she could not manage a start-up, nor, it would appear, any SME. Avie Tevenian said he was frustrated by the lack of success, and then said, 'You expect that from a start-up that has not been done [before].'
It seems a little as if it is just the amount of money that was the problem. Had small investors lost their money, then there would have been no criminal court case.
'When I worked for Steve Jobs, I saw some strange things, but she took it to a new level..' A difference in degree rather than kind?
Isn't it a case of getting her charged with something that'll stick? The fraud charges are probably easier to prove than the fake medical results given to patients which may or may not've caused their deaths.If she had not been so successful with gaining the rich and famous, who had a lot of self-conceit, to part with their money, would there have been a court case? Billionaires lose millions because they didn't take due diligence. Am I supposed to feel sorry for them?
The media seem obsessed with what they, rather ironically, suggest is her obsession with her voice timbre and dress.
There has been nothing to suggest her passion for her idea was false. The company, in part, collapsed because of her lack of ability beyond presentation. The product was faulty. On top of that, she could not manage a start-up, nor, it would appear, any SME. Avie Tevenian said he was frustrated by the lack of success, and then said, 'You expect that from a start-up that has not been done [before].'
It seems a little as if it is just the amount of money that was the problem. Had small investors lost their money, then there would have been no criminal court case.
'When I worked for Steve Jobs, I saw some strange things, but she took it to a new level..' A difference in degree rather than kind?
comment made me chuckle. Derek Smith said:
Given the number of start-ups that don't last, are based on speculation, and hope, in an around Silicon Valley, that fold within a few years because of iffy science, what's the difference between them and Theranos? She was excellent at marketing, something that many of the start-ups could learn a lot from.
If she had not been so successful with gaining the rich and famous, who had a lot of self-conceit, to part with their money, would there have been a court case? Billionaires lose millions because they didn't take due diligence. Am I supposed to feel sorry for them?
The media seem obsessed with what they, rather ironically, suggest is her obsession with her voice timbre and dress.
There has been nothing to suggest her passion for her idea was false. The company, in part, collapsed because of her lack of ability beyond presentation. The product was faulty. On top of that, she could not manage a start-up, nor, it would appear, any SME. Avie Tevenian said he was frustrated by the lack of success, and then said, 'You expect that from a start-up that has not been done [before].'
It seems a little as if it is just the amount of money that was the problem. Had small investors lost their money, then there would have been no criminal court case.
'When I worked for Steve Jobs, I saw some strange things, but she took it to a new level..' A difference in degree rather than kind?
Have an idea. It doesn't work, move on. If she had not been so successful with gaining the rich and famous, who had a lot of self-conceit, to part with their money, would there have been a court case? Billionaires lose millions because they didn't take due diligence. Am I supposed to feel sorry for them?
The media seem obsessed with what they, rather ironically, suggest is her obsession with her voice timbre and dress.
There has been nothing to suggest her passion for her idea was false. The company, in part, collapsed because of her lack of ability beyond presentation. The product was faulty. On top of that, she could not manage a start-up, nor, it would appear, any SME. Avie Tevenian said he was frustrated by the lack of success, and then said, 'You expect that from a start-up that has not been done [before].'
It seems a little as if it is just the amount of money that was the problem. Had small investors lost their money, then there would have been no criminal court case.
'When I worked for Steve Jobs, I saw some strange things, but she took it to a new level..' A difference in degree rather than kind?
Have an idea, it doesn't work. Claim it does provide false data and information and keep the money coming in.
Derek it'd be like you adapting a statement to claim you saw some do something when initially you only assumed that they might probably do it as they look guilty.
Hugo Stiglitz said:
Have an idea. It doesn't work, move on.
Have an idea, it doesn't work. Claim it does provide false data and information and keep the money coming in.
Derek it'd be like you adapting a statement to claim you saw some do something when initially you only assumed that they might probably do it as they look guilty.
I think that’s a very good analogy for the “fake it ‘til you make it” that she was doing - adapting the statement and assuming you’ll find some real evidence later. Have an idea, it doesn't work. Claim it does provide false data and information and keep the money coming in.
Derek it'd be like you adapting a statement to claim you saw some do something when initially you only assumed that they might probably do it as they look guilty.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff