|
Subjunctive posted:Was Theranos' flouting essential to their business model, as Uber's is, or just reckless operation?
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2016 14:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 06:38 |
|
|
Subjunctive posted:Was Theranos' flouting essential to their business model, as Uber's is, or just reckless operation? I would say that it was rather essential, given that they were selling a product that did not work. Bonus thing I found while checking exactly what rules they were flouting: Wikipedia posted:On December 2, The Washington Post revealed the exploration of a partnership with the US military had led to issues being found with the Edison device and a request that the FDA investigate. This request was denied by United States Marine Corps General James Mattis after Holmes's intervention. Mattis later joined the Board of Directors of Theranos. I feel like someone should hang for this.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2016 15:09
|
|
|
Subjunctive posted:Was Theranos' flouting essential to their business model, as Uber's is, or just reckless operation? Their product, had it existed, would have improved medical testing. Unfortunately, apparently it failed tests early on, and whle they were trying to make it work they were simultaneously issuing fraudulent reports about its working. Lote posted:The more you bet on somebody the bigger loss you have to eat when it goes bad. This is her sole thing that she's done so why her instead of any other Stanford grad?
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2016 16:10
|
|
|
So what was her "rep" besides being a young, pretty white woman who went to a good school? In my day you actually had to do something to have a rep.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2016 16:47
|
|
|
Which is of course at least somewhat ironic since 20th century transportation history in the US teaches us one main thing: when you open up more freeways and more lanes, more people drive cars. Extra auto carrying capacity ALWAYS gets filled. Certainly computer control would allow more cars to be packed into the freeways, and probably at higher speeds, but tires still pop and the roads can only carry so many cars.Radbot posted:So what was her "rep" besides being a young, pretty white woman who went to a good school? In my day you actually had to do something to have a rep.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2016 17:28
|
|
|
cheese posted:By most accounts she sounds like she had that 'it' factor that people like Steve Jobs had. Just something about them. But yes, being a not-white/asian guy certainly got her a lot of attention. I wonder what people consider Steve Job's "it factor" if you take away his ability to lead a company to produce amazing products. Being an rear end in a top hat who thinks fruit juice cures cancer, maybe.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2016 17:30
|
|
|
Arsenic Lupin posted:Their product, had it existed, would have improved medical testing. Unfortunately, apparently it failed tests early on, and whle they were trying to make it work they were simultaneously issuing fraudulent reports about its working. Their product does exist, and is made by other people even. Nanoliter biological sample testing is a thing but the problem is that the when you get to that sample size the number of your target substance is so tiny that it cannot be relied upon to produce a large enough response to always detect. What people who are smart do is to pull a normal sized sample to divide it and run a bunch of tests in parallel against a bunch of reference samples. But that's not cool enough I guess.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2016 17:31
|
|
|
Shifty Pony posted:Their product does exist, and is made by other people even. Nanoliter biological sample testing is a thing but the problem is that the when you get to that sample size the number of your target substance is so tiny that it cannot be relied upon to produce a large enough response to always detect. What people who are smart do is to pull a normal sized sample to divide it and run a bunch of tests in parallel against a bunch of reference samples. But that's not cool enough I guess.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2016 17:52
|
|
|
The Larch posted:I would say that it was rather essential, given that they were selling a product that did not work. That general is being shopped around among billionaires to run as president should trump get an ironclad nomination, fyi.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2016 18:00
|
|
|
From what I understand, Theranos' product did work, just not nearly as well as they said, and they were only ever able to get approval for one test that was relatively minor. So they probably could have had a real biotech company in 8-10 years following the normal, cautious R&D slog. Instead they decided to immediately go as big as possible, trusting the Theranos brand to get them new business while they propped up a technology that wasn't ready yet by using conventional lab equipment. It's exactly the sort of play you would expect investors who mostly invest in software to push for, because that's the winning strategy there. As long as it kind of works on the front end, it doesn't matter if things are a complete mess behind the scenes. This is a problem that it is assumed will work itself out once enough time and money is thrown at it, and in the meantime it's important to make a land grab because software markets are usually winner take all. I think the response upthread is right on, Theranos' problems are a result of culture clash. Its what happens when you try to apply what works in software to a much more difficult problem of fundamental science and biotechnology research. Edit: Theranos' investors include only one real biotech VC firm, and their biggest investor seems to be Larry Ellison. Suddenly everything makes sense. Baby Babbeh fucked around with this message at 18:24 on Apr 14, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2016 18:19
|
|
|
"It works, just not as well as they said" is a pretty generous interpretation considering there's some serious allegations of falsified regulatory documents going on; specifically, using third party lab testing machines instead of their "Edison" device and basically saying that Edison totes works as well as this other equipment, please believe us.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2016 18:27
|
|
|
Baby Babbeh posted:From what I understand, Theranos' product did work, just not nearly as well as they said, and they were only ever able to get approval for one test that was relatively minor. So they probably could have had a real biotech company in 8-10 years following the normal, cautious R&D slog. Instead they decided to immediately go as big as possible, trusting the Theranos brand to get them new business while they propped up a technology that wasn't ready yet by using conventional lab equipment. The more I hear about Theranos the more it reminds me of Soylent: A bunch of rich VC types sinking money into a health/biotech project as if the field works exactly like the software industry when in fact the proponents didn't really know what they were doing and it eventually becomes a huge and potentially dangerous mess. Except Theranos isn't nearly as funny as the Soylent story.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2016 18:45
|
|
|
This reminds me of that tricorder bomb-sniffer that was sold to the US/Afghan forces during Gulf War Electric Boogaloo that was just a metal detector shell with random bits of cabling in it.Rhesus Pieces posted:Except Theranos isn't nearly as funny as the Soylent story. v0.0.40 - Under advisement from Legal, soundbank from v0.0.39 removed v0.0.39 - Added v0.0.38 - Added "midichlorian count" mode v0.0.37 - T-Cell Counter under review after reports of several erroneous measurements v0.0.36 - Units now in Parts Per Million instead of Parts Per Miligram FilthyImp fucked around with this message at 18:54 on Apr 14, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2016 18:49
|
|
|
Radbot posted:I wonder what people consider Steve Job's "it factor" if you take away his ability to lead a company to produce amazing products. Being an rear end in a top hat who thinks fruit juice cures cancer, maybe. Steve Jobs had that special combination of smarts, technical skills, and immoral aggressiveness that people like to see in business leaders. He'd cheerfully exploit even his closest friends if it would make his company grow. Read about the relationship between Jobs and Wozniak and you'll get a real good feel for how much of a selfish prick Jobs actually was. His business acumen was great and he was, in fact, a smart guy with good technical skills but he was absolutely not the smartest guy at the table. What he was best at was convincing people smarter than him to produce results on the cheap.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2016 19:56
|
|
|
Hah. Just realized my tablet autocorreted to parents.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2016 20:07
|
|
|
Shifty Pony posted:Their product does exist, and is made by other people even. Nanoliter biological sample testing is a thing but the problem is that the when you get to that sample size the number of your target substance is so tiny that it cannot be relied upon to produce a large enough response to always detect. What people who are smart do is to pull a normal sized sample to divide it and run a bunch of tests in parallel against a bunch of reference samples. But that's not cool enough I guess. Whoever was talking about the problems of investing in biomedical as if it were software was totally spot on. The same rules do not apply and it burned people big time.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2016 20:46
|
|
|
I wouldn't say that Jobs' business acumen was outstanding; he made a lot of terrible decisions from business standpoints. Don't forget that the Apple II carried the company for a significant period of time and Jobs pet project machines didnt really take off or meet price expectations. He also was really obsessed with his early factories aesthetics which probably lead to a lot of headaches. Jobs had a really relentless drive for creating products he thought were good and was a good salesman. Eventually his drive and focus on aesthetics resulted in products that got him back into Apple and created some very successful products from there. He had a lot of that "hustling" quality that so many would-be valley founders love. He was also a massive (selfish) rear end in a top hat who didn't care about screwing people over to get what he wanted, and a dirty hippie.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2016 20:52
|
|
|
Hippies care about other people and/or the earth, even if it's misguided. Jobs was just an rear end in a top hat with magical beliefs.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2016 20:56
|
|
|
Fraud is bad and uncool in software too, in my opinion as a software non-fraud doer.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2016 20:58
|
|
|
Radbot posted:Hippies care about other people and/or the earth, even if it's misguided. Jobs was just an rear end in a top hat with magical beliefs. The aging bay and greater area hippie population disagree with you Lots of hippies espouse beliefs for caring for people as a larger population and the environment, but history showed plenty were assholes well as big of assholes as anybody really who got worse as they made out pretty well in the post-war boomer economy.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2016 21:04
|
|
|
lancemantis posted:The aging bay and greater area hippie population disagree with you I would posit that they weren't hippies to begin with. Just calling yourself something doesn't mean you are that something.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2016 21:14
|
|
|
Radbot posted:I would posit that they weren't hippies to begin with. Just calling yourself something doesn't mean you are that something. Really? Hippie Essentialism? No True Hippie?
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2016 21:24
|
|
|
Doc Hawkins posted:Really? Hippie Essentialism? No True Hippie?
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2016 21:34
|
|
|
cheese posted:No, their innovation, the thing that had people so crazy excited and willing to throw around huge stacks of money, was the claim that they could use finger prick levels of blood to perform tests that otherwise took much larger samples. Without that claim, they were nothing special - certainly not special enough to get all the publicity and articles about them, and the huge investments. That this was a lie is why it all came tumbling down. They made promises that they ended up not being able to deliver on. It is a clash between SV culture and reality. While getting things right 70% of the time is humorously quirky for your face swap app it is utterly unacceptable for a medical test where competing established tests are in the high 90s.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2016 21:54
|
|
|
After a sufficient amount of time, most hippies discovered that yurts stink, geodesic domes leak, earthfast houses have no windows, communal living is an invitation for cleaning and cooking to become somebody else's job, and subsistence farming flat-out sucks. Some of them then figured out ways to monetize foodie products: specialty gardening direct-to-chef, making goat chese instead of goat milk, pasture-raised meat stock. Others shrugged their shoulders and went back to the suburbs. Liberals have also discovered that the personal may be political, but my personal solar panels make a tiny contribution while the fossil fuels industries' propaganda successfully defeated large-scale renewable or low-carbon energy.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2016 21:54
|
|
|
Also a reproducability of 70% is only marginally better than flipping a coin. They also say that their test didn't "kill" anyone but the test that they're replacing is used to guide dosing of a drug. If you don't dose it right, your chance of stroke goes up but it's not certain. They've got "plausible" deniability. In actuality it's bad medicine that raising people's risk of stroke or a dangerous bleed.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2016 22:58
|
|
|
Radbot posted:Hippies care about other people and/or the earth, even if it's misguided. Jobs was just an rear end in a top hat with magical beliefs. pffft my doctor is an idiot this all-fruit diet is the best solution to my cancer
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2016 23:29
|
|
|
Doc Hawkins posted:Really? Hippie Essentialism? No True Hippie? Sure, if that's what you want to call it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2016 23:33
|
|
|
Lote posted:Also a reproducability of 70% is only marginally better than flipping a coin. Really? I'd say about 20%, but I'm not good at math.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2016 23:48
|
|
|
Pixelboy posted:Really? I'd say about 20%, but I'm not good at math. Yeah, it's actually 40%.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2016 23:50
|
|
|
"True Hippies" like romanticized in media did/do exist, but they're such a small percent of the "hey wouldn't it be nice if we didn't kill so much nature" crowd that excluding everyone else is silly.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2016 00:04
|
|
|
The Larch posted:Yeah, it's actually 40%. Well, I did say I'm not good at the maths.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2016 00:14
|
|
|
Doc Hawkins posted:Really? Hippie Essentialism? No True Hippie? Jobs, meanwhile, is swiping UI from Xerox and browbeating employees to get boot times down 2 seconds. But they didn't need to wear suits at work!
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2016 04:19
|
|
|
Uber is killing LA taxi companies.quote:Since the ride-hailing services began operating in Southern California three years ago, the number of L.A. taxi trips arranged in advance has fallen by 42%, according to city records, and the total number of trips has plummeted by nearly 30%. Granted this is for pre-arranged taxicab pickups, which I believe has a fairly clunky app and phone service. I'm wondering if the taxicab industry will adapt to be more lightweight and flexible, or double down on trying to legislate Uber out of existence. I think in NYC Uber still isn't allowed at the airports, I would be very interested to see similar statistics. It's not surprising that Uber has made the most gains in the nightlife areas. Most people I know in LA complain about the lack of parking, overzealous police/parking enforcement, and lack of late-night cab service as the reason why Uber is so popular in LA. E: forgot a word 
red19fire fucked around with this message at 17:50 on Apr 15, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2016 17:26
|
|
|
red19fire posted:Uber is killing LA taxi companies. NYC now has apps like Way2Ride and Arro in response Arro is already significantly outperforming uber in Manhattan. quote:When it came to fares, Arro performed slightly better, undercutting Uber’s prices by 10%. This included a 20% tip for the taxi drivers; I trusted Uber’s claim that their drivers earn enough to making tipping unnecessary.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2016 17:34
|
|
|
San Francisco requires Uber and Lyft drivers to get business licensesquote:For the first time, San Francisco is going to require the 37,000 Lyft and Uber drivers who work in the city seven or more days a year to obtain a business license.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2016 19:41
|
|
|
good...good... Next the city should require each Uber/Lyft vehicle to be certified as an ISO-compliant mass transit system. Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 20:27 on Apr 15, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2016 20:07
|
|
|
Even given that the state is insane enough not to have safety inspections for private motor vehicles (why? why?) surely Uber and Lyft drivers, as vehicles for hire, ought to? Shuddle, whose pitch line is "Uber for kids", bit the dust. quote:Shuddle had raised $12.2 million, including $9.6 million a year ago. That last infusion, originally targeted for expansion outside the Bay Area, instead has fueled its operations for the past year, Aley said. Shuddle lost money on every ride until this year, when it achieved positive margins.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2016 23:32
|
|
|
Relevant to this thread's OP, the Guardian has an article on how much money Marissa Mayer will take with her when she goes after Yahoo's sale. They're treating it as "when" rather than "if".quote:What’s the price of failure? For Yahoo’s boss Marissa Mayer it could be about $137m. Bids are now in for the ailing tech company – and no matter who gets it, Mayer is set to be one of the biggest winners.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 16:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 06:38 |
|
|
Arsenic Lupin posted:Even given that the state is insane enough not to have safety inspections for private motor vehicles (why? why?) surely Uber and Lyft drivers, as vehicles for hire, ought to? Uh. I mean I hope I'm reading this wrong but i can't imagine someone would sign off on the idea of "kid pushes phone button, stranger shows up to offer ride"
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 17:26
|
|
