The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
Blood Simple: My Review of "Bad Blood" in Taki's Magazine
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Jennifer Lawrence cast as Elizabeth Holmes

From my new book review in Taki’s Magazine:

Blood Simple
by Steve Sailer

June 13, 2018

Once the reelected Obama administration gave the okay for the diversity industry to begin shaking down Silicon Valley like it does everybody else, we began to read over and over that the reason there are few female tech founders is because the white male power structure leaves billion-dollar bills lying on the sidewalk just to spite women.

And yet, the industry’s most memorable story of recent years, as recounted in Wall Street Journal reporter John Carreyrou’s page-turning new book Bad Blood: Secrets and Lies in a Silicon Valley Startup, is how young blonde Elizabeth Holmes became tech’s pioneering female self-made billionaire (on paper) despite not quite having gone through the formality of actually inventing her breakthrough medical gizmo.

Starting Theranos in 2003 as a 19-year-old Stanford dropout, Ms. Holmes specialized in charming elder statesmen with her vision of disrupting the blood-testing industry. Over the next dozen years, Ms. Holmes raised (and spent) about $900 million, and saw her half of the company’s stock valued at $4.5 billion. Carreyrou writes:

As much as she courted the attention, Elizabeth’s sudden fame wasn’t entirely her doing. Her emergence tapped into the public’s hunger to see a female entrepreneur break through in a technology world dominated by men…. In Elizabeth Holmes, the Valley had its first female billionaire tech founder.

Read the whole thing there.

 
Hide 442 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. Gordo says:

    Lawrence is not manjawish enough.

    • Replies: @Jim Christian
  2. robot says: • Website

    popunders and autoplay, count me out, sorry

    • Replies: @Autochthon
  3. I highly recommend this article for students of social psychology, literature, economy, groupdynamics, history and all kinds of assorted fields as well as to anybody else (investors).

    I’ ve prepared – let me count – five great quotes. Here’s just one:

    “So if you know as much about science or industry as, say, a secretary of state, it wouldn’t seem ridiculous to assume that if they can analyze DNA with computer chips, why can’t Our Elizabeth analyze blood? After all, the nonagenarian board members could remember when they had never even heard of DNA, but blood has been around forever, so how complicated could it be?”

  4. Pericles says:

    because the white male power structure leaves billion-dollar bills lying on the sidewalk just to spite women.

    In the defense of this hypothesis, we should note that the Jewish media complex does not hesitate to shut down a billion dollar income stream like Roseanne. (Also a woman by the way, highly significant.) So why should the Jewish Silicon Valley VC industry behave any differently?

  5. Lot says:

    “No, the real weakness in most conspiracy theories is the sheer quantity of elite ineptitude. It turns out that, unlike in 1984 or Brave New World, there is no Inner Party of Machiavellian but informed insiders who actually know what’s going on. Hence, even the guys who won the Cold War were made fools of by a megalomaniacal young lady with the winds of the zeitgeist at her back.”

    Agreed. There’s an opinion too hot for Unz.com!

    The other main issue with the major conspiracy theories is why? Elites seem to have plenty of power and control without the bothers and risks of spectacular and conplex crimes like killing JFK, RFK, and secretly dynamiting several Manhattan skyscrapers and timing the demo with suiciding hijackers.

    The daily blood glucose tests that diabetics use have obviously had a lot of effort at making an accurate test with as little blood as possible. Have a look at that pharmacy aisle: this is the main thing they compete on.

    But that it just one easy test. The idea of using that little amount to perform dozens of more complex ones seems pretty absurd in retrospect.

    The current silly scam coming from Silicon Valley is of course bitcoin and the other 2500 or so “cryptocurrencies” which have been around for more than a decade and still do not do anything remotely useful despite about $15 billion of spending and a theoretical market value of $300 billion.

  6. Rod1963 says:

    Another Carly(the wrecking ball) Fiorina coupled with old male wishful thinking.

    All these titans never bothered to do basic “due diligence”. Had they even bothered to talk to a RN they could have told them what Holmes was selling was pure BS.

    But she was a high functional sociopath who could read people and play those old goats like fiddles. She knew they were all physically decrepit and lacked the energy and intellect to question her invention even after years of failure. This is why she courted them and not some younger hard nosed techies with fat wallets who would in with medical specialists and grill the little nutter.

    Another take away is that the deep state is full of very lazy and decrepit people who are ripe for the picking. They are more of a joke than anything else given that a kid could play them with such ease.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    , @Anonymous
  7. Andrew M says:

    A similar scam running at the moment is a company called Magic Leap. According to Wikipedia, they’ve been going since 2010, have soaked up at least $1.4bn in VC funding, and have yet to produce a viable product. I don’t know anything about the major players or who is hoodwinking who, but this deserves more investigation.

    • Replies: @BB753
  8. Maciano says:
    @Lot

    Bitcoin isn’t a scam at all, the other cryptocurrencies are all hype. Usually people who argue bitcoin to be a scam are over 60, have never used it or don’t understand the technology.

    I also think it’s kind of funny that you admit bitcoin to have been around 9 years, while attacked and declared dead constantly (from nobel winners to buzzfeed bloggers), yet still call it “silly”. Cognitive dissonance much?

  9. Anon[413] • Disclaimer says:

    The problem with Holmes’s set up was that blood contains lots of different things, much of which requires a different test/experimental setup. Unlike DNA, you can’t just optimize for one thing. I guess it would be equivalent to a test that measures human awesomeness; is there a test that simultaneously measures intelligence, creativity, talent, physical attractiveness, personality, and athletic ability all at the same time? And could any individual test that measures one of these traits in particular be used to accurately gauge another?

  10. Rod1963 says:
    @Lot

    But that it just one easy test. The idea of using that little amount to perform dozens of more complex ones seems pretty absurd in retrospect.

    It’s physically impossible and any 1st year med student will tell you that. You cannot get blood gases from a finger tip prick. Just not happening.

    But hey these old goats can’t even read a blood panel and were too damn lazy to bring in a few pros to explain to them – that what Holmes intended can’t be done. It would take all of 5 minutes.

    From the looks of it Silicon Valley is all but dead in terms of real innovation. Right now the big thing gathering and selling information and controlling information access for the peons. The stuff they are doing would give Orwell nightmares and make 1984 look like child’s play.

    This is a internal Google video called the “The Selfish Ledger”. Very creepy considering how much Google is already monitoring us along with Amazon and Facef**k,.

  11. Puremania says:

    Maybe the investors had seen enough of the Doc Martin series, featuring that hemophobic-yet-ingenious surgeon, to embrace the idea of a needle-shy blood expert. The ironic iconic.

  12. eah says:

    charming elder statesmen with her vision

    Yes — I bet they found her “vision” really “charming” — anyway, she probably doesn’t spend a lot of time bitching about the ‘patriarchy’, since it didn’t do her any harm.

  13. jim jones says:

    I enjoy watching a phlebotomist taking my blood though some of them seem to be rather heavy-handed.

  14. Dave Pinsen says: • Website
    @Lot

    It’s also pretty expensive, about a dollar per test strip. There’s a grey market in unused test strips once owned by dead diabetics.

  15. Off-topic, but what the heck. Immigrants, doing the work that Germans can’t do for themselves (or at least, not any more): Murder of Jewish girl in Germany fuels an anti-migrant backlash

  16. >>Carreyrou notes that her deep Voice of Command timbre is an affectation.<<

    You can go a long way with the right Timbre, even if you lack the right Timber.

    Which is why Presidential (or CEO) Timbre beats Presidential (or CEO) Timber.

  17. sabril says:

    Along the same lines, there is an interesting mini-scandal around an internet personality known as Naomi Wu a/k/a Sexy Cyborg. Apparently she is a 22 year old Chinese girl who parades around in extremely revealing outfits and who claims to build her own wearable tech. There is good reason to suspect that the real inventor is her male partner behind the scenes.

    You can read about it here:

    https://voat.co/v/SexyCyborgLiar

  18. Anon[421] • Disclaimer says:

    I’ll take Jenny Lawrence over Elspeth Holmes please. :)

    • Replies: @Jim Don Bob
  19. sabril says:

    By the way, if you are counting deaths from Holmes’ shenanigans, you need to consider the life-saving technologies that were NOT invented due to investment in her scheme and not legitimate products by competent men.

    When you take opportunity cost into account, the price of pretending that women can do guy stuff is probably pretty staggering, both in terms of competent men who were denied investment and brilliant men who were never born because smart women were doing guy stuff and not making babies.

    Eventually, mankind will discover a cure for cancer but feminism will delay that discovery by a significant length of time, perhaps years. How many men and women will die of cancer during that time period? That’s the real tragedy of people like Holmes.

  20. peterike says:

    I wonder if the film role of sleazy Indian — but I repeat myself — Sunny Balwani will be whitewashed? Maybe they’ll get, oh, Benedict Cumberbatch to play the role of “Sammy Balwindsor” or something suitably very white and WASPy.

    Or they’ll just have a black dude play it and make him the hero somehow.

    I’d point out how Balwani is a perfect exemplar of Peterike’s Law (“Asian immigration will be much worse for America than Hispanic immigration, and Hispanics ain’t no picnic”), but it’s getting boring pointing this stuff out as another example pops up almost every day.

  21. Chelsea and E-Holmes used to be BFF, this is from when they both were under investigation in May of 2016. Couple of scary broads. One a corporate cheat, the other a tax cheat. Aren’t there ANY honest women out there?: The article: https://www.theverge.com/2016/3/22/11285476/here-s-a-picture-of-theranos-ceo-elizabeth-holmes-and-chelsea-clinton

  22. Arclight says:

    Vanity Fair is saying that she is currently looking to raise funds for another startup venture.

    I am not yet quite done with this book, but even taking into account various parties’ desire to get in early with the next Steve Jobs, it’s shocking just how little due diligence investors and board members did, and how often they plowed ahead even after huge red flags.

  23. Jake says:

    “By the way, Carreyrou notes that her deep Voice of Command timbre is an affectation.”

    That acting voice made her sound like the ‘sister’ of Frankenstein’s monster, the good doctor having figured out how to make his monster creation talk rather than just grunt.

    There is something not right about men who hear that and think,”Ooh, the daughter I always deserved to have.”

    • Replies: @Anonym
  24. sabril says:

    I wonder if this upcoming movie is going to portray Holmes sympathetically. I wouldn’t be surprised if they make her out to be some sassy plucky young lady sticking it to the Evil Patriarchy.

    • Replies: @sayless
  25. Jake says:

    “Sunny, in fact, had the master-servant mentality common among older generations of Indian businessmen. Employees were his minions.”

    More than implied in that sentence is that the noted character trait is no longer common the rich Indian business class. And that implication would be false.

    The reason you write that way is to signal: perhaps we may be forced to acknowledge something less than ideal about even assumed ideal immigrants, but that is no excuse to think about the negative effects of mass immigration and related scams run for the benefits of billionaires (such as H-1B visas). The reason is that the bad was all in the past; it was only the bad older Indians who were guilty.

    • Agree: Highlander
  26. Jake says:

    “…Carreyrou leaves unanswered the question of what in the world Holmes saw in the untalented and unpleasant Balwani, other than his faith in her destiny.”

    It was the white woman getting even with the bad white men who managed to be ‘better’ than her. That plus the ‘eat, pray, love’ factor, in which white women, and gay men, desperately search for spiritual meaning permeating ‘oriental’ thought while getting sexually tumbled by the sellers of such deep spiritual wisdom.

    • Agree: Clyde
  27. Jennifer Lawrence is quite the character herself. For one, it seems that she is a dyed-in-the-wool literal masochist. This, going off of her recent roles in “Red Sparrow” and “Mother”, as well as the leaked pictures of her performing degrading sex acts.

    • Replies: @YetAnotherAnon
  28. bomag says:
    @Lot

    Elites seem to have plenty of power and control without the bothers and risks of spectacular and complex crimes…

    This.

    I get the vibe that conspiracy advocates harbor a firm belief that the central authorities have the power to greatly improve our lives if they would just turn their attention away from planning spectacular crimes and start planning spectacular infrastructure projects.

    • Replies: @Lot
    , @Dave from Oz
    , @Bleuteaux
  29. @Lot

    “The idea of using that little amount to perform dozens of more complex ones seems pretty absurd in retrospect.”

    Is it? The cheap DNA-on-a-chip revolution showed how you could do so much with so little, and Much-With-Little has been the pattern ever since the enormous, power-hungry ENIACs started getting miniaturized into transistors and then microchips. It didn’t work in this case, but it was not outside of the historical pattern. Specialists understood that there were specific obstacles to miniaturizing and cheapifying blood testing, but then you could have said the same thing about transistors and DNA tests at a certain point in the past too.

    To be sure, there were plenty of reasons to doubt the Theranos story (many of them HBD-ish, which might have something to do with why they were never raised), but I don’t know that the supposed impossibility of blood-on-chip was one of them.

    • Replies: @advancedatheist
    , @Forbes
  30. Carreyrou doesn’t do a particularly informative job of explaining why anybody ever thought Ms. Holmes’ sketchy idea for a product would conquer the world. (I would have enjoyed more analysis and speculation, but with Carreyrou getting $3 million for the movie rights, he can’t be blamed for sticking to a just-the-facts-ma’am approach that won’t open him up to a libel suit.)

    There is room for both. Junger’s “The Perfect Storm” could have long (but interesting) detours to analyze the economics of deep sea fishing, or the physiology of drowning, and still have the main story be adapted into an adventure film. Likewise, Carreyrou can spend a few pages on the difference between venous and capillary blood and not forego the million dollar payout for the movie.

  31. I work in the tech world and my boss is a woman, her boss is a woman, the company is run by women, and the primary software we use is Epic, started by Judith Faulkner. The whole “women are shut out of tech fields” thing is a myth. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judith_Faulkner

  32. Benjaminl says:

    This is a great piece. Sure, the broad outlines of the story are well-known by now…

    But where else are we going to get astute commentary on the H-1B angle (“Most were on H-1b visas and dependent on their continued employment at the company to remain in the country. … Sunny, in fact, had the master-servant mentality common among older generations of Indian businessmen. Employees were his minions”), much less a quote from Glassdoor (“Brown nosing or having a brown nose will get you far”)?

    Or understated bons mots like “for people who don’t know much about blood, such as Henry Kissinger, myself, and Elizabeth Holmes…”

    • Replies: @Anon
    , @Kylie
  33. I want Nick Nolte to use his low voice to dub over Jennifer Lawrence in any movie about sleazebag money-grubbing swindler Elizabeth Holmes. I am extremely disappointed that Sidney Lumet croaked, because his accurately jaundiced view of human nature would have added immeasurably to the directorial side to this movie.

    It still bothers me that Marisa Tomei did what she did in a scene with that horrible dead druggie Philip Hoffman. Sidney Lumet directed that scene, to the detriment of his overall career.

    James Earl Jones should be retained to teach Mr. Nolte how to get a really good low voice.

    Meryl Streep should play General Mattis in the Elizabeth Holmes movie starring Jennifer Lawrence. Meryl might have to tone down her strength to play the money-grubbing fop boy Mattis.

  34. Hockamaw says:

    When you hear these stories, it’s never surprising to me that people who should have known better got fooled. But it is always surprising to me that people who get PAID to know better get fooled. How useless are these financial analyst types?

    • Replies: @gp
  35. Big Bill says:

    Read her provisional patent application (60/501,847). One drawing sheet with 10-15 labeled rectangles and a laundry list of the hundreds of diseases it would diagnose and treat. All inside a capsule that could be swallowed.

    I can almost guarantee you that +90% of the application was stuff the patent attorney pulled out of his b*tt to beef the application up and make it sound “scientific”.

    A freshman engineer in college could see that it would take decades and billions of dollars to achieve.

    Her one cheesy drawing looks like a sketch a 10 year old boy would make of a space ship with lots of little boxes saying “space warp drive” and “life support” and “hydroponics tank” and “planetary guidance system” and “cosmic transporter deck”. Would you give him a billion dollars for his sketch?

    I blame the idiot investors, academia and media who think a patent application is some kind of “magic dirt” that turns ravings into a business.

    PS: Give me a call if you have a few bucks to burn and you want to turn your high school kid into a genius. We can throw together two or three provisional patent applications filled with any kind of BS you like, file them with the Patent Office, and then she can mention them in her applications to Stanford, Yale, Harvard, MIT. Those chumps will fall for anything. Best of all: it’s perfectly legal.

    • Replies: @Lot
    , @Autochthon
  36. It would be much better if blood testing were as quick and easy as blood-pressure testing. But blood sampling today happens in the reverse order. At your appointment your doctor gives you an authorization to get your blood drawn. You go to another office, and there a phlebotomist sticks a needle into a vein in your inner elbow or wrist and drains out a few vials of your blood. Then a few days later the results are finally ready.

    However, you aren’t going to see your doctor for another year, so unless something threatening is evident, you generally don’t have much opportunity to review your latest results with him until your next appointment in twelve months.

    I guess my GP is the exception. I schedule my annual check-up in October. About a week before I’ll get a call telling me to go get my blood drawn at the lab, and she’ll discuss the results with me when we meet.

  37. Clyde says:
    @Arclight

    Taki is still good but they cheaped out by getting rid of comments.

    I am not yet quite done with this book, but even taking into account various parties’ desire to get in early with the next Steve Jobs, it’s shocking just how little due diligence investors and board members did, and how often they plowed ahead even after huge red flags.

    The investor’s lemming think was that rich guys X, Y and Z and their super duper financial advisors have already vetted Theranos for me. How can I go wrong flying in the slip stream behind George Schultz and the others?

  38. Anonym says:
    @Lot

    The other main issue with the major conspiracy theories is why? Elites seem to have plenty of power and control without the bothers and risks of spectacular and conplex crimes like killing JFK, RFK, and secretly dynamiting several Manhattan skyscrapers and timing the demo with suiciding hijackers.

    This is why famous spy agencies have mottos like “Through way of earnestness though shalt forge peace.”

  39. OFF TOPIC

    I hereby strongly suggest that Dave Weigel is overly reliant on sarcasm and Waukesha County, Wisconsin jokes. We’re aware of your tricks, Weigel!

    Weigel will not work for you unless you’re a billionaire. That’s Weigel’s business model, and he’s sticking to it!

    Never Trump Whores All The Time In Media:

    • Replies: @Malcolm X-Lax
  40. Anonymous[270] • Disclaimer says:

    Steve, in case you really wonder what was an appeal of finger prick over a needle in the vein:
    Many people, particularly elderly, have absolutely terrible veins – fragile, buried deeply, etc. Doing phlebotomy for them can be a real trouble and require expert hands. In non-expert hands these people end up with veins punctured numerous times and/or bleeding internally, giving the patients bruises half the size of their arms. Plus pain of course. Plus, every phelebotomy carries a small potential for sepsis – a concern given the increasing idiocracy.

    But of course the dream of the finger prick is all bullshit. It’s not whether the technology works or does not, it’s the fact that blood composition in the finger is very different from the bulk blood in the body and that this difference varies too much depending on a lot of things. That is the main reason why Theranos was fraud from the very beginning.

    I am still shocked that Holmes and Balwani were not criminally prosecuted.

  41. George says:

    “Further, the difference in my blood volume drained seems immaterial compared with both systems needing to punch a hole in my skin. ”

    I first heard of Theranos when it was claimed that you should sell all your shares of Quest Diagnostics because their business model was going to be disrupted. Quest rents large office spaces and populates them with somewhat well paid phlebotomists and other medical professionals. Quest also has some way of transporting lab samples to labs quickly and without damaging the samples. Theranos claimed they could do all that, while you wait, in a drug store with trained but not professional staff and a fully automated machine.

    Was it unbelievable? I personally have noticed that an increasing about of blood work is done in the doctor’s office with only certain tests being sent off to quest. The doctors still have to hire phlebotomists and the machinery is not completely automated but I can see why people would have thought Mainframe to mini mainframe to servers to PC to laptop to smartphone would apply to Quest Diagnostics to Doctors office to Drug store.

    As far as the movie goes, I wonder how they are going to finesse her elderly ‘muse’? Normally you don’t sell movie tickets to young girls by offering an escape from drudgery plan that involves sex with an ugly old man, if that was the case. I think girls know about that plan already, they go to the movies to dream about Hans Solo. If it were the golden age of Hollywood Cinderella might end up revealing the scam to one of the rich handsome debonaire sons of the deep staters she was fleecing when he proposed marrying her, or t0 the G-man she fell in love with who was investigating the scam, but only after consulting an Irish Catholic priest during confession.

    The movie I might be thinking of was Mr 880 staring Burt Lancaster.

  42. Che Guava says:

    For commentors or readers who may not know, Blood Simple was the title of a good film many years ago, not unlike Hitchcock at times.

    Nice headline by Steve.

    I was following the Theranos story a little at the time, knew most of it, although not the Indian (dot not feather) connection which, while not a surprise, seems to have been studiously avoided in contemporary reporting of the debacle.

    • Replies: @Jim Don Bob
  43. Mr. Anon says:

    To lend credence to her claims for her Edison blood-analyzing device, Holmes assembled a board of directors featuring a Deep State hall-of-fame lineup, including former secretaries of state Henry Kissinger and George Schultz, current secretary of defense General “Mad Dog” Mattis, and former Senate majority leader Bill Frist. Her Democrats included retired Senate Armed Services Committee chair Sam Nunn, Carter administration defense secretary William Perry, and Al Gore’s superlawyer David Boies.

    Perhaps the judgment of such notable people isn’t all that good in matters of defence and foreign policy either.

    • Replies: @JJ Boccabella
    , @black sea
  44. Mr. Anon says:
    @Arclight

    I am not yet quite done with this book, but even taking into account various parties’ desire to get in early with the next Steve Jobs, it’s shocking just how little due diligence investors and board members did, and how often they plowed ahead even after huge red flags.

    I remember back in 2000, during the dot-com bubble, an announcment that some venture capitalists were funding a start-up run by one of the Netscape founders to “do something on the Web involving healthcare” (or words to that effect). That was actually the full extent of their plan, and they even admitted they hadn’t thought it out beyond that. Unsurprisingly, it all came to nothing.

    But then, none of the parties involved are poor today, so I can’t say it didn’t work out for them.

  45. Perhaps there’s mostly just the Peter Principle—everyone rises to his or her level of incompetence and stays there—all the way down.

    A bit depressing when you think about it. Recasts how I look at all the leaders through world history. How many were “really that good” (Alexander?) and how many were beneficiaries of being at the right place at the right time (with good staff propagandists to tell the story later)? Dare say the former category has very few members.

    • Replies: @Anonym
    , @YetAnotherAnon
  46. Excellent article, Steve, and very well written. You really should consider publishing some of your columns.

  47. Tiny Duck says:

    Late but a GREAT review of Get Out

    white privilege does not mean your life is automatically going to be great if you are white. It means that the hardships you face will not be *because* you are white.

    why is this so hard you for you people to understand

    • Replies: @Haxo Angmark
    , @fish
  48. manton says:

    Steve, Bill Perry was Clinton’s SecDef, not Carter’s. He was an U/S in the Carter Admin.

  49. Ahh, the zeitgeist again. The rise of Liz Holmes is a variant of the Hillary Rodham Clinton Phenomenon. In the wake of the Anita Hill-Clarence Thomas hearings the feminists and their minions in the the elite media were casting around, looking for someone who could carry their water. Voila! Hillary Rodham Clinton–complete with all the credentials (Wellesley College, Yale Law, partner in the largest law firm in the state of Arkansas, feminist spear carrier) etc. etc. From 1993 she had been touted as the “co-president” and proclaimed her husband’s eventual heir apparent. A prog’s wet dream come true. And this notwithstanding that there were red flags flying all over the lot. Our Betters, however, would have none of it. They turned out to be conned big time, and but for The Deplorables the Big Con would have suckered the whole country.

    • Replies: @Inquiring Mind
  50. Steve, if you’re wondering why people thought Theranos was so ground breaking, I suggest you read the book again. Not sure if you had to have 2k words of copy for Taki’s really fast, but in a nutshell:

    The original concept was people with chronic conditions using measured drugs could easily test their blood to see the effacy of the drugs and how their disease was progressing, and they could do this from their home. A big part of the Edison’s (or whatever variation they were calling it) draw was the ability to transmit results.

    The idea being that you have a patient taking a new drug to control their disease, and versus waiting two weeks to a month to see their doctor again, you simply do a finger stick and the doctor checks the results in real time and can see how the drug is working, does he need to make changes in doses, are there bad side effects, etc.

    You’re talking real time patient monitoring here, which would have quickly have become a standard of care and made Theranos beaucoup bucks if it had worked. However, remember the excerpt from where they tested this out in Appalachia somewhere and people complained how they had no signal? Yeah.

    Finally, the big difference between finger stick and antecubital (“the inside of your elbow”) blood draw is that anyone can get their own blood off a finger stick. Its a much more difficult task to successfully stick your own IV.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    , @sfoil
  51. @Arclight

    If it was about virtue signaling and not making money, it makes sense.

  52. snorlax says:

    OT/Deep State: No white males need apply!

  53. AndrewR says:

    Despite the persona she attempts to portray with the turtlenecks, I imagine this woman’s “charms” were not limited to her vision of disrupting the blood-testing industry. Every girl has her price…

    • Replies: @marat
  54. AndrewR says:
    @snorlax

    Just when I think we had reached peak Current Year, we have the obese new Secretary of State expressing his confidence on his official Dorsey account that the rookie civil servants, two-thirds of whom are female and half of whom are “people of color” will represent “our great country” with “swagger.”

    • Replies: @njguy73
  55. Screwtape says:

    Just because she’s not that pretty doesn’t mean it’s not the poosy pedestal.

    “Attractive” in the prog world is not about superficial looks. Thats misogyny. Its about her go-girl attitude and her CV.

    Thats what real men find hot. And what makes daddy so proud. Marriage you say? Babies? Tradition? Femininity? Lol. Get out of the ‘50’s bro.

    The geriatric board of retired (rich) gov’t tit sucklers may have seen her as the princess they should have had, but this is still the same kind of vag worship that gets regular low T beta male joes gutted by their high T ballbusting soon to be exes.

    For all the hate thrown at boomers, they were actually pretty good at converting daddy’s little princesses into sociopathic manjaws with james earl jones gravelboxes.

    The only surprise about the lean-in femcentric fetish meets silicon valley is that we haven’t seen more of this.

    Which either means that evil genius sales women just aren’t that interested in “tech” or that the army of silicon valley incels are just that powerful.

    Something must be done about that. More male skulls on spikes?

    Also, Takimag is unreadable without the comments section. Shame.

    • Replies: @DFH
    , @njguy73
  56. AndrewR says:
    @Arclight

    Presumably they plowed ahead after plowing Ms. Holmes.

  57. Anonymous[106] • Disclaimer says:
    @snorlax

    Glad to see this. But these DoS employees will never be part of Deep State and never have any real power. That aside, if you think white male Deep State is on your side then you’re either Mitt Romney or Charles Koch. While it’ll never happen, I’m all for white males being pushed out. It will defang the MIC and end endless wars for endless peace.

    • Replies: @Jake Barnes
  58. Anon[277] • Disclaimer says:
    @Lot

    “The other main issue with the major conspiracy theories is why? Elites seem to have plenty of power and control without the bothers and risks of spectacular and conplex crimes like killing JFK, RFK, and secretly dynamiting several Manhattan skyscrapers and timing the demo with suiciding hijackers.”

    The Elite doesn’t think like accountants. Or like Englishmen, as Nietzsche would say. Or like “stupid policemen” as Dr. No says.

    Why do it?

    1. Because they can. “Wouldn’t you?” as Burroughs liked to say.

    2. Psy-Ops

    3. Because some men just want to watch the world burn.

    • Replies: @Precious
  59. Whiskey says: • Website

    Re Barsanyi, arrogance and cruelty are the two most attractive traits men can have for women. No wonder Holmes was sleeping with him.

    It’s as if men and women really are enemies. Because most want mutually exclusive things.

  60. Kissinger avuncularly tried to set Holmes up on dates with promising young fellows he knew, unaware that she was living with her “executive vice chairman” Sunny Balwani

    I’m sure that didn’t stop Holmes from going on plenty of “dates” with various different men.

    There’s a reason the “relationship” (with Balwani) was kept secret.

    The entrepreneur’s aged Bilderberger board members seemed less drawn by her sex appeal than by a sort of dynastic this-is-the-daughter-I-deserved-to-have-had emotion.

    For some reason, I doubt this.

    I wouldn’t be surprised if she implied that she was ready to give out “favors” to some of her investors or board members.

  61. McFly says:

    Another random detail in the book that was interesting: Carreyrou mentioned that actual breakthroughs in microfluidics were made by Andreas Manz and other scientists in Switzerland.

    I guess it makes sense that the culture that made advances in particle physics and watchmaking would also dominate this field.

  62. DFH says:
    @snorlax

    Do you think they actually let the blacks near foreigners?

    Since I imagine that the State Department is the most prestigious and competitive branch of the Civil Service, like the Foreign Office in the UK, I can only imagine what the more mundane Civil Service branches look like in America.

  63. @JohnnyWalker123

    How old are you? As someone entering his seventh decade the daughter-I-deserved aspect seems awfully plausible. Not every old fart is a Weinstein in waiting.

  64. Rebunga says:

    Yeah, but having J-Law play you in a movie is so HOTT! It all seems almost worth it . . . .

  65. @JohnnyWalker123

    If she had Hillary Clinton’s looks, there probably would’ve been fewer “mentorship” opportunities with powerful men…..

    Lots of powerful/wealthy men are prepared to do stupid stuff when an attractive (or semi-attractive) woman is implying she’s sexually available.

    • Replies: @sabril
    , @Harry Baldwin
  66. L Woods says:
    @snorlax

    Everything you need to know about the U.S. government, in one photograph. The few beleaguered looking white males are a likely artifact of veterans’ preference. The level of physical attractiveness is par the course for DC as well. That blonde in the turquoise dress doesn’t look too bad though

    • Replies: @Anon
  67. Henry Kissinger’s obsolescence in the world of 21st Century technologies hasn’t stopped him from thinking he knows about artificial intelligence:

    https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/06/henry-kissinger-ai-could-mean-the-end-of-human-history/559124/

  68. Bad Blood will next be filmed by Will Ferrell’s pal Adam McKay (director of the Big Short mortgage movie) with Jennifer Lawrence as Holmes.

    I’m curious, does anyone know how this works for Holmes? Will she get paid for the use of her image, will she have a say on the script?

  69. Pat Boyle says:

    Jenifer Lawrence was probably an inevitable choice. Meryl Streep would have been the front runner but she is too old. Which raises a related question.

    Tom Hanks is likewise too old. So who will play Elon Musk in the big Hollywood movie about the great Musk hoax? That book and film are probably at least five years away so the lead actor might be someone younger than we would now expect.

  70. @Almost Missouri

    >The cheap DNA-on-a-chip revolution showed how you could do so much with so little, and Much-With-Little has been the pattern ever since the enormous, power-hungry ENIACs started getting miniaturized into transistors and then microchips. It didn’t work in this case, but it was not outside of the historical pattern.

    The over-rated, not very competent inventor Buckminster Fuller noticed this trend decades ago, and he called it “ephemeralization.” The term denotes a real phenomenon.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ephemeralization

    For example, the LED light bulbs which have replaced Edison-style bulbs use about a third of the power for the equivalent output of light, and they can reportedly work for a decade or so. Light bulbs have transformed from power-hungry Victorian kludges that we had to throw away after a few months into power-frugal durable goods.

  71. BB753 says:
    @JohnnyWalker123

    Can Viagra allow 95 year old Kissinger to perform? Just curious.

    • Replies: @njguy73
  72. “Bad Blood will next be filmed by Will Ferrell’s pal Adam McKay (director of the Big Short mortgage movie) with Jennifer Lawrence as Holmes.”

    I called this one a few months ago. http://www.unz.com/isteve/what-theranos-scandal-reveals-about-the-deep-state/#comment-2245824

    Like the woman said ” You try to be cynical but you can’t keep up”

    • Replies: @MEH 0910
  73. Blood Simple: My Review of “Bad Blood” in Taki’s Magazine

    Backing Vocals by Elton John: My Review of “Bad Blood” on the Peak Stupidit blog.

    Sorry, I’ll be reading your stuff later on, and maybe even commenting in some sort of appropriate manner.

  74. sabril says:
    @JohnnyWalker123

    If she had Hillary Clinton’s looks, there probably would’ve been fewer “mentorship” opportunities with powerful men…..

    Hillary Clinton was actually not bad-looking in her youth.

    Lots of powerful/wealthy men are prepared to do stupid stuff when an attractive (or semi-attractive) woman is implying she’s sexually available.

    Yeah, it’s one of those things we aren’t supposed to notice, but life as a somewhat attractive young woman is life on super-easy mode. I think it’s a big part of the reason there is such a big problem with depression among middle-aged women.

    One thing I’ve noticed as a man is that when you become somewhat successful and connected, young women start showing up looking for opportunities. They aren’t exactly looking to have sex with you, but from the fact that it’s almost always women who do this, I think there is a sexual component to it. I think that a subconscious level, they are hoping to benefit from the male need for female validation. They are hoping to flirt a bit, show a little leg or cleavage, and take advantage of your position. In fact, I think that a lot of sexual harassment claims are simply the result of these sorts of negotiations failing, e.g. the man wanting more from the woman than she is prepared to offer him; or the woman regretting the bargain she struck.

    • Agree: Jim Don Bob
    • Replies: @Corvinus
  75. @Simon in London

    I think CEO Tinder beats them both.

  76. @Pat Boyle

    Katherine Heigl. Both are terrible actresses (Lawrence), but Heigl has more of that artificial Stepford Wife look that Holmes has.

    • Replies: @JJ Boccabella
  77. I don’t get why Jennifer Lawrence has plunked down for this role.

    Lawrence is conspicuously woke. This story, on its face, is harshly anti-woke.

    What’s her incentive to play Holmes?

  78. inertial says:

    What in the world Holmes saw in the untalented and unpleasant Balwani

    What do women see in flashy, imperious jerks? A question for ages.

    Hence, even the guys who won the Cold War were made fools

    They didn’t win anything. They just happened to be in office when the USSR crashed for its own internal reasons. These men ain’t so wise as they were made out to be according to triumphalist mythology.

  79. @Lot

    “No, the real weakness in most conspiracy theories …”

    Agreed. There’s an opinion too hot for Unz.com!

    Yawn. Anyone still scoffing at “conspiracy theories” must be living in an impenetrable dream world. Just for one random example, you can take your pick: either we were the victims of a massive Russian conspiracy that hacked our election and inflicted Trump upon us, or alternatively, that story is that a lot of squid ink coughed up by the deep state to cover up multiple massive DOJ conspiracies to spy on and subvert Trump’s campaign and administration. I don’t see any third option here. Of course not everything is a conspiracy, and notoriously even very effective and experienced conspirators can be vulnerable to the wiles of an attractive young woman.

    • Replies: @Lot
  80. Anonymous[324] • Disclaimer says:

    It’s almost as if there will never be a final victory in the battle of the sexes because there is too much fraternizing with the enemy.

    You missed the mark.

    The more important point is that the generations who flushed away our civilization, my birthright, are you boomer+ dorks who conveniently decided to become “feminists” when you got into power.

    “Oh, haha, it’s so awful that in *my* day, it was all white men who got into management. Why, gee golly, I’m so enlightened I go out of my way to “mentor” young Asian girls!”

    Yeah. Senile boomers not just kicking away the ladder but beating us over the head with it while they get some awkward sexual satisfaction (consummated or not) from young women looking up to them with the DOUBLE bonus that these women are not a threat to them like ambitious young men and the TRIPLE bonus that they get social approval for their wokeness.

    Disgusting and the end of America, but great for talentless old white men.

    Btw I’m talking about Republicans here, too. Cuckservative boomer millionaires will certainly have their special place in hell.

    • Agree: Charles Pewitt, L Woods
    • Replies: @Bleuteaux
  81. JimB says:

    To recap, popular hunger to see a black president and a female tech billionaire gave us two of the most incompetent frauds of 21st century. I’m surprised nobody has written an anthology about the Pedro Principle – the diversity version of the Peter Principle. There are so many examples in public life, today.

    • LOL: Anonym
    • Replies: @Jim Don Bob
  82. charlie says:
    @JohnnyWalker123

    If you remember the Michael Crichton book “Deception” (not one of his better works, but a decent movie) that is the relationship between the female villain and the old board chair — father/daughter.

    You can read all you want into it, but it isn’t uncommon.

  83. Alfa158 says:

    It’s a lot easier to gull Famous Great Men into being your directors when you aren’t asking them to put any of their own schmundo into the pot. The Directors had no financial risk since they weren’t the big investors. The company had an intriguing pitch, and if it did take off, it would only have to fly long enough for the Directors to cash out their options at enormous profits and walk away. Lots of potential upside; no downside, so why the hell not? You put in an occasional weekend for board meetings in resort hotels and let the company use the gravitational pull of your name and fame, if it works out, fine, if it doesn’t then it doesn’t.
    I worked at a couple of tech companies that lasted long enough to cash out before the whole house of cards collapsed. It beats the lottery as a path to wealth for ordinary schmucks like me.

  84. Marty says:

    … the reelected Obama administration gave the okay for the diversity industry to begin shaking down Silicon Valley …

    How did it do this?

  85. @candid_observer

    Spitballing here

    She wants to establish herself as a serious woman (lol) and remove some of the, uh, stains, from her, um, public images.

    She wants to become “more than” “just a”.

    She wants an in to Silicon Valley, venture capital, etc world.

    She can get introduced to various people and educated on how it works as part of research as prep for the role. Then she plays a Silicon Valley serious woman in a movie.

    Since movies are more real than real life, she can then do some vanity startup investing and instantly she is also a serious woman in real life.

  86. Anon[210] • Disclaimer says:

    Hollywood should make a movie about Harvey Weinstein.

    Hollywood needs more self-critical works like SUNSET BLVD and BAD AND THE BEAUTIFUL.

  87. The Z Blog says: • Website

    Not having read the book, I could be all wrong here, but Holmes appears to have run a very sophisticated con. She targeted the foreign policy geezers because of how it would look to investors and analysts. Other than showing up to be flattered, they did not have to do anything. They were, in effect, straw investors. They were the bait and they never knew it. That’s a pro-level con.

    Did the writer dig into her past, before she hit Stanford? I’d be curious about stories from her youth. My guess is she ran a lot of minor cons as a teen and while in college.

    • Replies: @Anonym
  88. Tyrion 2 says: • Website
    @Pat Boyle

    Musk’s commercial endeavours may be overvalued but his products are amazing. There’s something of the Howard Hughes about him.

    Also, Tesla may end up being a weirdly prophetic name, or maybe not.

    While Theranos made nothing at all.

    • Agree: RadicalCenter
    • Replies: @Anon
  89. Anon[210] • Disclaimer says:
    @Lot

    But there’s a difference between endorsers and enforcers.

    All those big shots recruited by Holmes were just for show. They were retired mostly and wanted to be associated with something sexy. They were merely endorsers, hardly different from celebs hired to appear on cereal boxes.
    But where men like Kissinger were enforcers, they could be formidably secretive, like when Kissinger met with Zhou and others without the world knowing. Iran-Contra was certainly a conspiracy. And the media pulled a conspiracy of silence around Rev Wright and John Edwards sex scandal. And Russia Hacking has to be one of the biggest media conspiracies ever.

    There was certainly an inner-circle of conspirators who led on the media, investors, and the public to boost company profits and press for Theranos, aka There-are-No’s.

    Anyway, people can be conspiratorial and inept. Iran-Contra people certainly were. So were the Comey-Lynch-Clinton-Brazile gang that pulled dirty stuff against Trump.

    • Replies: @Lot
    , @njguy73
  90. Forbes says:
    @Arclight

    Scarily, if you’ve worked in and around venture capital, some projects/ideas take on a life of their own. They create (embody) a seemingly unstoppable momentum, being at the right place, at the right time. This is also known as luck.

    Other, equally valid ideas or opportunities stall and go nowhere. The explanation for this phenomena are as endless as the variables of any investment proposition.

    The way forward in these “life of their own” projects is some kind of star power, be it a notable/name investor who’s bellied up a boatload of money, a board member who’s signed on (Kissinger, et al.), or investors convinced they are in the presence of the next Steve Jobs. Or some bright, shiny object that will revolutionize X, Y, or Z industry–make the lame walk, the blind to see, cure AIDS, a pin-prick blood test…

    Star power blinds investors to red flags, while speculative investments don’t lend themselves to due diligence as there’s no record to examine–it’s a speculation, after all.

    Bernie Madoff remains the king of con men because he essentially turned away investors that needed to perform due diligence–which meant checking behind the (fraudulent) reporting to ascertain that the recorded transactions were accurate and true.

  91. Carreyrou:

    …Sunny had elevated a group of ingratiating Indians to key positions…. For the dozens of Indians Theranos employed, the fear of being fired was more than just the dread of losing a paycheck.

    Most were on H-1b visas and dependent on their continued employment at the company to remain in the country. With a despotic boss like Sunny holding their fates in his hands, it was akin to indentured servitude.

    President Trump should abolish the H-1B visa foreigner importation scam at once. Trump should stop all the guest worker visa scams at once. Student visas or guest worker visas or any of the other visa scams — cancel them.

    Indians from Asia will have to be dealt with by mass deportation. I just read where Indians are taking over towns in Virginia. Indians have taken over towns in New Jersey, California, Washington and many other states.

    The answer to mass immigration is mass deportation.

    Citizenship revocations will have to be utilized to get the foreign born percentage of the population in the United States below 3 percent. It is now at about 15 percent.

  92. Anon[210] • Disclaimer says:
    @Tyrion 2

    While Theranos made nothing at all.

    It made branding.

    Holmes should switch to advertising.

    • Replies: @Tyrion 2
  93. Forbes says:
    @Almost Missouri

    There’s a difference in the constituent properties as between capillary blood and venous blood. I haven’t seen that addressed anywhere. (I could’ve missed it.)

    I don’t think there’s any similar variability with DNA.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    , @marat
  94. Anon[277] • Disclaimer says:

    “Unexpectedly for people who don’t know much about blood, such as Henry Kissinger, myself, and Elizabeth Holmes,”

    Oh, I think Hank knows a lot about blood … other peoples, that is.

  95. Anon[210] • Disclaimer says:
    @Arclight

    Vanity Fair is saying that she is currently looking to raise funds for another startup venture.

    She can call it Anemia or Vampiria.

    In the Age of Anne Rice and Twilight, maybe the stuff about blood made Theranos sexy.

    I mean the company would have had less appeal if it promised medical results based on spit or piss.

  96. Anon[210] • Disclaimer says:
    @Simon in London

    She looks like a robotic version of Anne Coulter.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  97. Regarding the valuation of Theranos, it’s confusing to me. I check out e.g. Quest Diagnostics’ recent annual profit (around 600mil, but I think inflated given only 1.8bil in sales), x2 for the other major player in the industry. She wouldn’t ever really have a monopoly, although she could eat a lot of market share initially by being cheaper and faster, others would start building their own machines immediately. So assuming a moderate-high risk of failure typical of startups were the investors just idiots to peg Theranos at 1bil? Maybe, but I suspect they were counting on the market capture to lead to other lucrative opportunies, which is typical of Silicon Valley companies. The iPhone became popular first, but now has a very strong position in the app market, and so forth. See also Facebook which is becoming its own web portal to drive further profits. Maybe they imagined a Theranos device in every home running tests dictated by doctors who would have to work with/through Theranos in a sense to get to patients, or whatever. A good saleswoman (which may have been Holmes’ only real ability) could and would probably make that pitch.

    Regarding Balwani and the act of noticing, probably the geriatric board members aren’t as aware of the tendencies of folks from the subcontinent as younger job hunters are. The whole Holmes/Balwani leadership duo should have been a huge red flag, even without knowing they were sleeping together. That said, I suspect Holmes found something of a mentor in him, or at least someone who could offer almost paternal support in the context of the complete bullshit operation they were running.

    • Replies: @Anon
  98. The geezer boy DEEP STATE douchebags like Kissinger, Shultz and Mattis didn’t “win the Cold War.”

    The Cold War was a disgusting fraud perpetrated by government worker assholes to enrich themselves and their plutocrat patrons.

    The Cold War was a giant jobs program — that was its best feature.

    MILITARY KEYNESIANISM — GODDAMMIT!

  99. fitzGetty says:
    @Arclight

    … but I assumed that she was in the clink, San Quentin or similar …

  100. @Pat Boyle

    In what way is Musk a hoax, I understand that some people don’t like him, but his cars do actually work and SpaceX now dominate the launch business, its along way from Theranos and Elizabeth Holmes

    • Replies: @Pat Boyle
  101. @JohnnyWalker123

    Holmes is reasonably attractive but not that great looking, though she does the best she can with what she’s got. The young Hillary could have been about as attractive if she’d put the same amount of effort into it.

    Holmes has crazy eyes, at least in that photo.

    A problem with the casting of Jennifer Lawrence is that she looks dumb.

    • Replies: @Anonym
    , @uh-huh
  102. Anon[143] • Disclaimer says:
    @candid_observer

    Her incentive is that roles for women who are the main characters of a film don’t pop up everyday, and are highly valued by actresses as a prize. The main character of most films is male.

  103. @candid_observer

    What’s her incentive to play Holmes?

    20 million and 20%

  104. Once the reelected Obama administration gave the okay for the diversity industry to begin shaking down Silicon Valley like it does everybody else

    A downside of being a Republican, or listening to Republicans and taking them seriously, or generally being right-of-center, pretty much since the Ford administration, is that in the Republican view of the universe Democrat=Socialist=Communist, and therefore Democrats are, qua tribe, not to be listened to.

    It’s on account of this that a real difference between center-left Democrats, and psycho-tribal Republicans, has generally gone un-noticed:

    Democrats – the non-Communist kind who to this day groups as minimally right-wing as Pragger-U refused to believe exist or ever existed – believe that laws exist:

    To solve problems.

    This is in contrast to Republicans who believe that:

    Laws are the problem.

    Except there’s all these corollary exceptions to the Republican position:

    Laws are the problem, unless they benefit corporate and big-monied constituents
    Laws are the problem, unless they are already in place and its easier to ignore them even if they benefit the other side’s constituency and hurt the GOP constituency … or even if they hurt the interests of the nation as a whole
    Laws are the problem, and that’s why we don’t pass laws that actually might serve to solve the problems our constituency elected us to solve

    So we are stuck with all kinds of laws that allow all the mischief we complain about on Unz – and the GOP is content as long as someone writes an article in the National Review or Quillette or the Federalist that shows how the GOP is right and the culture behind the law, is wrong.

    No need to fix the problem, with laws.

    That’s something Democrats do.

    And Democrats are communists, didn’t you know.

    So back to the block quote.

    The shakedown problem is a problem that two GOP-controlled houses of Congress and Republican President can fix before November and a conservative-majority Supreme Court can lock in for decades. But then we would have to expect Republican elected officials to pass or reform laws.

  105. What does say about the judgement of your SecDef. Can’t hate on Ms Holmes, she’s got balls.

    I wonder, how does her haul compare to the so called Nigerian scammers.

  106. Anon[143] • Disclaimer says:
    @Benjaminl

    I glanced at the last names of the board of Directors for Theranos in 2016. Nearly all of them look Jewish. Yes, this looks like an old story. Drooling, older Jewish guys being led around by their noses by an attractive blond goy chick, the sort of female they want to have but don’t often get a chance to grab at, especially at their current ages in life. It goes a long way towards explaining why they were so easily deceived by her.

  107. Anonym says:
    @candid_observer

    What’s her incentive to play Holmes?

    Politics is orthogonal to acting ability. Maybe in the current environment there is a liberal correlation or selection process at work. Certainly of the set of great actors the Hollywood A-list is composed of those who do not piss off their elite liberal Jewish gatekeepers for various reasons, politics being one (but you can also get talents like Mickey Rourke who are just a PITA – a guy who keeps going back to boxing being a combative a**hole, go figure). So you get some conservatives who keep it mostly zipped like Oldman, and you get the genuine liberals and apolitical whores, male and female, who act liberal.

    Aside from that, Lawrence definitely has talent. Watch American Hustle. That movie was a lot of fun, and she was great in it. No surprise she was an Acadamy Award nominee for it, which I only just learned. And now I see she has an Oscar and another 3 nominations. I have seen none of the other movies but it is no surprise to me.

    So her incentive for Holmes is her incentive to demonstrate her acting chops and maybe get awarded for it again. Nothing more than professional competitiveness IMO. It’s a serious role, not another Hunger Games money maker.

    • Replies: @WowJustWow
  108. Anonym says:
    @Harry Baldwin

    A problem with the casting of Jennifer Lawrence is that she looks dumb.

    She has a higher forehead than Holmes, which to me indicates greater intelligence generally. So while Lawrence can play a ditz I suspect she can play someone intelligent.

    • Replies: @Harry Baldwin
  109. Tyrion 2 says: • Website
    @Anon

    That’s like telling the prettiest girl working on an oil rig that she should go and be a professional model.

  110. Anonym says:
    @The Z Blog

    Did the writer dig into her past, before she hit Stanford? I’d be curious about stories from her youth. My guess is she ran a lot of minor cons as a teen and while in college.

    That’s insightful. The fact she had retained so much ownership indicates she wasn’t a dupe of Balwani.

    • Replies: @reiner Tor
  111. @Gordo

    Agreed. J-Law ain’t the one, Renée Zellweger is.

  112. Lot says:
    @bomag

    Yes, one non-criminal conspiracy theory involves elites refusing to release miracle car engines that run on water.

    There are two huge elite conspiracy against the public that are real: island tax havens of billionaires and mass immigration. But neither are centrally directed, nor big secrets.

  113. Lot says:
    @Tim Howells

    I think the Russians took a few minor low-budget psy-op campaign and hacking experiments against us. For example, playing up BLM protests among both blacks and Trump supporters.

    The right denies this because it is embarrassing that Russia wanted Trump to win and took a few inconsequential steps to favor him. And that Trump briefly employed a few scumbags like Manafort and Page who wanted to sell out to Russia more than the Russians actually wanted to buy them.

    The left overstates them because they want to delegitimize Trump.

    No conspiracy is needed either way. The motivation for partisans in both cases is obvious and needs no formal direction.

    • Agree: Tyrion 2
  114. Anonymous[169] • Disclaimer says:
    @Rod1963

    RN? Are you shitting me? They know nothing about ClinLab.

  115. Lot says:
    @Anon

    And Iran Contra failed to stay secret! It is instructive, elites fight among themselves and have a motivation to expose their rivals’ crimes.

    • Replies: @reiner Tor
  116. Anonymous[169] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anon

    Coulter? That’s MRS. Jimmy Walker to you.

  117. Kylie says:
    @Benjaminl

    I see what you did there.

  118. Anonymous[169] • Disclaimer says:
    @Forbes

    Been discussed here many times. Everybody but Pinsen gets it.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  119. Anonym says:
    @inertial

    They didn’t win anything. They just happened to be in office when the USSR crashed for its own internal reasons. These men ain’t so wise as they were made out to be according to triumphalist mythology.

    The elite are not generally incompetent bozos. Yes, the USSR had problems, among them the problem of empires that often the costs of maintaining the empire become greater than the income. And yes, anyone no matter how intelligent will make errors from time to time. However, the leaders of the Free World (TM) understood that the Soviet economy was dependent on oil, and I think, wheat?

    http://www.bigissueground.com/history/blair-reaganwonoverussr.shtml

    The USA knew exactly what the weaknesses of the USSR were and sought to cut it off at the knees by hamstringing its income and maximizing its expenses. It’s funny, if they thought Reagan could have been effective, the deep state should have killed off Reagan to keep the Cold War gravy train rolling. Heck, maybe Bush tried to but as to whether that was the reason, I’m not sure.

  120. @Dieter Kief

    “Unexpectedly for people who don’t know much about blood, such as Henry Kissinger, myself, and Elizabeth Holmes…” was pretty good too. Nice review Esteban.

  121. Stabilo says:

    Some questions/comments:

    1. In social media businesses if you pull off the con for long enough to sign up enough customers, you actually have something of value, both for shareholders and users. (Simply by virtue of all the users sharing their data.) This is a sort of magical bootstrapping process: creating something out of Nothing. Such a “reflexive” loop does not exist in the Theranos business.

    2. No biotech savvy investor put money into Theranos. (I can’t explain Tim Draper’s investment… senility?)

    3. I cannot explain Stanford Professor Channing Robertson’s unflagging support for Theranos. He is clearly a smart guy and not easy to fool (unlike Schulz, Kissinger etc. who know nothing about science). Anyone got any ideas?

    4. Elizabeth Holmes: Gerontophilia?

    5. Common reaction from my wife (and her other friends): She is is worth $4.5bn and has such awful hair: split ends, frizzy, bad cut. (This was when she was a media darling… I know she is broke now)

    6. What was Holmes’ end game? A sale to a larger company? No end game? My guess: she didn’t expect this level of success. The valuation ruled out a sale. She was stuck.

    7. Why were academic scientists not more critical? Intimidated by Silicon Valley?

    8. I hope there is a criminal prosecution. Martha Stewart was prosecuted for much less.

    9. I know there is zero chance that the board will be prosecuted, but don’t they have some liability?

    • Replies: @Anon
  122. GHOULQ says:

    I don’t understand the concept of selling film rights to a non-fiction book. Facts are facts, and the book has introduced them to the public domain. Can someone explain?

    • Replies: @Forbes
    , @slumber_j
  123. @Hapalong Cassidy

    Well, she learned her craft at the feet of a master !

    • Replies: @Clyde
  124. DFH says:
    @peterike

    It will be that smarmy yank paki who seems to be forced into everything

  125. Anonym says:
    @Jake

    How do they know the voice is an affectation? It might be a testosterone related thing. Do a google image search of female serial killers. You will see plenty of man-jaws, and think to yourself, they look a bit like men in drag.

    Plotting and pulling off a con like this is a pretty ballsy thing to do. I would expect to see male traits in the sort of woman who would have the balls to try something like this. Man jaw, deep voice, that sort of thing.

    I find the voice disturbing.

    You know, Kissinger said “Power is the ultimate aphrodisiac” in 1973, at a time in his life when I doubt he needed much in the way of aphrodisiacs. At this stage of his life (95 in 2018) there is a good chance that not only is he unable to ejaculate due to a prostate op, both he and any partner are going to need strong aphrodisiacs. He will need blue; she will need green.

  126. DFH says:
    @Screwtape

    When you’re 60+, I imagine virtually any 20 year old woman is attractive

  127. Anonymous[181] • Disclaimer says:
    @Jack Hanson

    You’re talking real time patient monitoring here, which would have quickly have become a standard of care and made Theranos beaucoup bucks if it had worked.

    The Theranos machine couldn’t do the test period. Forget about simultaneous, the machine didn’t work. “Real time” wrong results get you nowhere.

    This will be an interesting criminal case. I’m saying Trump pardons her AFTER the verdict to stick it to the deepstaters. :)

  128. Anonymous[181] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anonymous

    … and I’m starting to wonder about Hanson.

    • Replies: @Jack Hanson
  129. Anonym says:
    @Captain Tripps

    The Peter Principle breaks down with good hiring, which a lot of good management will be good at. Someone good at hiring won’t say “Let’s promote that guy because he succeeded in his current job.” They will say “This role needs traits X, Y and Z and needs experience a and b. Let’s find someone who best fits that description.”

    The organizations that do this better will tend to outcompete the Peter Principled organizations. I am not sure that the same competitive pressure exists in government, but I’ve seen enough competent government employees to know that the libertarian concept that all government employees are like DMV employees is false.

    • Replies: @Captain Tripps
  130. Anonymous[181] • Disclaimer says:
    @Rod1963

    It’s physically impossible and any 1st year med student will tell you that. You cannot get blood gases from a finger tip prick. Just not happening.

    Now you’re just man-splaining. ;)!

  131. @Captain Tripps

    “Recasts how I look at all the leaders through world history. How many were “really that good” (Alexander?) and how many were beneficiaries of being at the right place at the right time (with good staff propagandists to tell the story later)? Dare say the former category has very few members.”

    No, most probably were that good – because otherwise someone better would have beaten them. Admittedly, they DID mostly have to be born to the right people to even be able to compete.

    Don’t let it bring you down. After all, Theranos were crap, they were found out, and they’re bust.

    I’d worry more about the companies who were found out and are still selling drugs in America.

    http://fortune.com/2013/05/15/dirty-medicine/

    • Replies: @Captain Tripps
  132. Anonymous[181] • Disclaimer says:
    @Charles Pewitt

    Kathleen Turner.

  133. uh-huh says:
    @Harry Baldwin

    A problem with the casting of Jennifer Lawrence is that she looks dumb.

    Yes, exactly. Lawrence has the flat-faced, dull-eyed look of someone out of a genetically limited Kentucky holler.

  134. @Dieter Kief

    Michael Bloomberg on NY nutrition recently comes to mind as well. I’d be interested in some other examples of people who should know better buying into scams and schemes. Global warming fanatics like Al Gore fit the mold though the likes of Bill Nye should be skeptical. Although, otherwise, I don’t understand the fascination with the Holmes scam.

  135. Anon[745] • Disclaimer says:

    “Is it? The cheap DNA-on-a-chip revolution showed how you could do so much with so little, and Much-With-Little has been the pattern ever since the enormous, power-hungry ENIACs started getting miniaturized into transistors and then microchips. It didn’t work in this case.”

    There was no reason to believe that it would work in this case. The example you refer to here, computers, doesn’t apply. There is a difference between perfecting and miniaturizing an existing technology (computers, light-bulbs, internal combustion engines), and making a totally new technology that is cross compatible between different things requiring wholly different technologies to begin with. Proteins and DNA are not the same; they require different diagnostic tests that are not cross compatible. The tech used to sequence DNA cannot be used to sequence proteins and the tech used to determine the molecular weight of proteins and DNA are not the same, among many possible examples. What Holmes proposed will take many billions of dollars and years of research. These old guys really should have known better.

    • Replies: @Anon
  136. Pat Boyle says:
    @(((They))) Live

    The most obvious answer is his Hypertube scheme.

    • Replies: @(((They))) Live
  137. NOTA says:
    @Lot

    Madoff’s victims were also overwhelmingly well-connected insiders whom you’d expect to be fairly sophisticated.

    • Replies: @Lot
    , @eric
  138. Brutusale says:

    It’s striking to me that 40 years ago I couldn’t buy shares of the company started by the REAL Black Turtleneck, a guy whose company had a product that WAS going to revolutionize an industry, but the People’s Commonwealth of Massachusetts knew better than its citizens.

    https://www.marketwatch.com/story/when-apple-went-public-on-this-date-in-1980-massachusetts-warned-investors-to-stay-away-2017-12-11

    Womyn complain that they can’t catch a break in tech, but the Fake Turtleneck, without a real product, used guile, fraud and her snatch to loot willing old white guys to build a unicorn with a $9 billion market cap!

    Don’t even get me started on the slap on the wrist she got for her crimes.

  139. njguy73 says:
    @Anon

    Anyway, people can be conspiratorial and inept.

    Not to be Captain Obvious here, but if you’re called “conspiratorial,” then ipso facto you are inept.

  140. sfoil says: • Website
    @Jack Hanson

    Real time patient monitoring was only the initial pitch. The end goal was probably to allow automated external control of drug dosage, outside of a hospital. Once the medical applications were worked out, you could have the machines keeping e.g. pilots at some optimum level of alertness, automatically administering small doses of stimulant as needed.

    • Replies: @Big Bill
    , @Anon
  141. njguy73 says:

    I wonder if the film role of sleazy Indian — but I repeat myself — Sunny Balwani will be whitewashed?

    Dear Aziz Ansari,

    You want people to give you a mulligan on your encounter with #MeToo? Then do this role.

    Yes, you’ll have to play up to Indian stereotypes.

    Fine, don’t. Hope you enjoy hearing “Aziz Ansari to block.”

    Sincerely,

    NJGuy73, or The Person Everyone Needs To Start Listening To

    • Replies: @J.Ross
  142. @DFH

    DFH, I a now 72 and I think women at age 30 to 40 are most attractive. Do not share this with my wife of nearly 38 years.

  143. I am going to skip reading comments for a bit and remind all here that Jennifer Pritzker is a billionaire business woman. Some one please post a photo and maybe Danny DeVito could play her in a movie.

    • Replies: @Jim Christian
  144. Clyde says:
    @YetAnotherAnon

    Well, she learned her craft at the feet of a master !

    Harvey I presume.

    • Agree: YetAnotherAnon
    • Replies: @Anon
  145. @Prester John

    Hillary Clinton is more Manchurian Candidate than you think. Wasn’t she part of this “network” of L as in “leftist” women — Janet, Donna? Let’s just say that they were “well connected” within their circle? I am not saying what Ms. Clinton is, simply that she had strong support going back many years from women who, are?

    iSteve, is it time to dust off your essay “Lesbians are not Gay”?

  146. @DFH

    I’m 60+ and I can’t validate your speculation. I’m amazed at how out of shape and unattractive many young women are. I prefer my wife, who also is 60+ but very fit, and I can honestly say she has a better figure than many young women. At the same time, it’s hard for anyone, male or female, to keep their looks after their mid-50s no matter what they do. You’re gonna look old, that’s all there is to it.

    • Replies: @TheJester
  147. njguy73 says:
    @Screwtape

    Just because she’s not that pretty doesn’t mean it’s not the poosy pedestal.

    It’s called the STEM-pretty equation.

    [ (Raw prettiness) x (Decades in STEM department) x Pi ] / (# of other women in department) = STEM prettiness.

    If you’re a 5 who’s been working with a bunch of male engineers for 5 years, you’re a ( 5 x 0.5 x 3.14) = 7.85. Unless some other women gets hired.

  148. Precious says:
    @Anon

    You are making a mistake in assuming that Lot asked the question because he wanted someone to answer it by offering examples or counter-examples.

    It is trivially easy to show Lot is wrong about this by offering counter-examples, but the purpose of him asking the question was to show us how smart he is. Thus counter-examples will be ignored or disqualified, because they fail to justify the reason the question was asked in the first place.

    • Replies: @Anon
  149. njguy73 says:
    @AndrewR

    Just when I think we had reached peak Current Year, we have the obese new Secretary of State expressing his confidence on his official Dorsey account that the rookie civil servants, two-thirds of whom are female and half of whom are “people of color” will represent “our great country” with “swagger.”

    If he says “They got swagger like Jagger,” I’m taking a hostage.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  150. njguy73 says:
    @BB753

    Can Viagra allow 95 year old Kissinger to perform? Just curious.

    OK, BB753, we’ve had some mutually rewarding conversations on this site. I respect your views and agree with some. But you can’t be saying shit like that. It’s not fair to any of us. A person may be reading this on their lunch break.

    • LOL: BB753
    • Replies: @BB753
  151. @peterike

    Every experience I’ve ever had in business with Call Center Indians have been horrible. They are unbelievably dishonest. They lie as easy as fish swim. They are also incredibly cheap. All around terrible people when it comes to business dealings.

    • Replies: @Thea
  152. Lot says:
    @NOTA

    That is another good point.

    Madoff investors who were not insiders ended up getting all of their money back. They still lost out on a big bull market, but the trustee did amazing work at recovering that much money.

    • Replies: @Dan Hayes
  153. J.Ross says: • Website
    @Dieter Kief

    I read that quote and immediately thought of how every major problem in IT comes back to computer-illiterate board members whose password is “password.” We really are awash in evidence of a runaway decadent elite that has outlived its usefulness and competitive instincts, and their idea of a response to public awareness of their ineptitude is phantom Russians.

    • Agree: Thea
  154. J.Ross says: • Website
    @njguy73

    Hell, he’s perfect, just tell him to be himself.

  155. Dan Hayes says:
    @Lot

    Lot:

    As an immediate aftermath of Madoff’s escapades NPR shed crocodile tears over some mid-scale NGOs that went belly up. I wonder whether they were ever resuscitated. (PS: I certainly hope not!)

  156. @Tiny Duck

    actually, Tiny Duck,

    without White social capital and handouts,

    Peak Negro =

    Haiti

  157. sayless says:
    @sabril

    The upcoming Holmes movie will have a vignette or two, however brief, of suffering under the patriarchy/sexism, which will set her up as a sympathetic character gone over to the dark side. But maybe not?

    Louise Fletcher created the best-ever female villain, Nurse Ratched.

    She says she can’t watch Cuckoo’s Nest again, it’s too cruel.

    • Replies: @sabril
    , @flyingtiger
  158. @Mike Zwick

    Medical billing fields seem to be overwhelmingly female in my experience. That said, in the hospital I knew which had a similar setup, the more “abstract” tech stuff was still being handled by a guy.

    Technically what the women did was more mundane – transcription, matching cost costs, error-checking, and so on, but it was honestly impressive and advanced in its own way. I learned a bit from one of them, who was I dating at the time, and I think it substantially helped my own information management.

    • Replies: @Lot
  159. fish says:
    @Tiny Duck

    Ohs Tinys…..

    Why be its “hard”? Yu unnerstand?!

    Lendsperg “ I be Tinys puppet mastur” Pizza esq.

  160. Forbes says:
    @GHOULQ

    Original ideas are hard to come by, including the research, interviews, subject matter expertise, etc. A couple staff writers could turn out a workable script, based on the book, in a month. The book may be public, but it is not public domain–it is copyright protected. Much/most of the author’s work is proprietary. Cheaper and timelier to buy the film rights than to repeat the research, interviews, etc.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
  161. Remember in the 80s when these issues would get in the media and we’d talk about them like they were solvable – with laws?

    Like if there was some terrible cultural trend that needed to be quashed before it did too much harm, and people would figure you had to pass a law, so that people would behave right or be sued or fined or jailed or de-licensed, if they goose-steppedly fell into line with a hateful popular trend that violated American values?

    Back when we talked like that: like – (a) here is this problem (b) legal remedies are 1,2,3 (c) this is politician A or that politician Bs position on proposed legislation – and the legislation will be debated and voted on on so-and-so a date.

    That’s what articles were like. And often they’d say that “oh, we can’t pass the law because the GOP has the Oval Office and the Senate but the Democrats have the House” , or “we can pass the law but only with some special stipulations to bring some Democrats on board”.

    The funny thing is: Democrats in office still think its their job to pass laws that would actually do something for their constituencies.

    The GOP – now in full control of the government – prefers not to pass laws – figuring, I guess, that constituents believe they have an obligation to change the culture before changing the law.

  162. Forbes says:
    @DFH

    Well, most any young woman who’s not fat, these days. The number of young female blimps walking around is astounding.

  163. MEH 0910 says:

    Reporting on Theranos and Elizabeth Holmes

  164. J.Ross says: • Website

    OT math is hard.
    No effect of stereotype threat on girls’ math performance in a large, pre-registered study (N = 2,064)

    http://programme.exordo.com/isir2018/delegates/presentation/47/

  165. @Mike Zwick

    I work in the tech world and my boss is a woman, her boss is a woman, the company is run by women, …

    Get out now!

  166. @Anon

    You can have them both.

  167. @Che Guava

    For commentors or readers who may not know, Blood Simple was the title of a good film many years ago, not unlike Hitchcock at times.

    One of the Coen brother’s first films, and still one of their best.

    • Agree: Che Guava
  168. @JimB

    the Pedro Principle – the diversity version of the Peter Principle

    Excellent! Gold box worthy!

  169. Berty says:

    So Steve, care to make a thread about Paul Ryan’s secret amnesty bill being considered?

  170. @uh-huh

    Yes, exactly. Lawrence has the flat-faced, dull-eyed look of someone out of a genetically limited Kentucky holler.

    Maybe that’s why she was so good in Winter’s Bone. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter’s_Bone

  171. @Anonymous

    “I am still shocked that Holmes and Balwani were not criminally prosecuted.”

    Well, the state in which they plied their devious tradecraft recently downgraded the transmission of HIV/AIDS to a misdemeanor, so it could well be that the state regards their bloody malfeasance as positively benign by comparison.

    PS: Takimag stinks; has since April Fools’ Day.

    • Replies: @Flip
  172. Lot says:
    @Daniel Chieh

    Mrs. Derb does medical billing.

  173. Lot says:
    @Big Bill

    Yeah there is a name for these, vanity patents.

  174. @Mr. Anon

    Given the photo of Ms. Holmes with the Clinton offspring, I wouldn’t be surprised if Bill & Hillary’s paw prints weren’t all over that $1.5B. As my old poli sci prof told us freshman year: It’s not the Repubs vs the Dems, it’s the ins vs the outs. And all of those coots were definitely ins.

  175. @MikeatMikedotMike

    “Katherine Heigl. Both are terrible actresses (Lawrence), but Heigl has more of that artificial Stepford Wife look that Holmes has.”

    Excellent, re Holmes as the Stepford-cum-Stanford protagonist and the bleached Heigl in that role. It’s a matter of personal preference, but I’ve no use for this Lawrence, either. The bottom line anyway: I shan’t be adding to the bottom line of that which runs Hollywood.

  176. @Rod1963

    Look up bugman in the dictionary and you see a picture of the presenter in that video

  177. J.Ross says: • Website

    OT Terry MacAuliffe’s felonious voters blocked by Virginia’s state supreme court.

    https://www.amren.com/news/2018/06/virginia-high-court-strikes-down-govs-order-giving-felons-right-to-vote/

    Not yet tired of winning.

  178. Anon[973] • Disclaimer says:
    @Precious

    Lot = high IQ idiot

  179. @snorlax

    That there is one low-wattage pathetic lookin pc diversity quota fillin group of incompetents. Representing us in state dept capacities? Hardly surprising i guess, state may be the most inept clueless pc fed agency in the whole lot, which is saying something. Lotta old peace corps retreads that never allowed reality to interfere w their ideology.

  180. @Jim Christian

    I do not see how Hollywood could possibly do a movie on this horrible woman and it be fair and accurate.

    • Replies: @Jim Christian
  181. Lagertha says:

    I knew Theranos was full of crap for years, before I joined the iSteve frat. Despite the fact that I knew she was a loser -liar for years (pretty, white girls , at elite U’s are often bona-fides crazy (recruited by CIA) or having an identity complex, once away, from controlling parents), what really upsets me: she destroyed the idea of : smart Blonde Barbie. A Lagertha doll..maybe even a Rosie, would be sold out at American Girl doll shop in NYC in one hour. Lagertha; complete with axe, knife, sword, scabbard, iron chains, seeds (duh). Rosie: mouth, iPhone with an extra camera: energy, a copy of the Constitution!

    Someday, we will read her obit about all her accomplishments….oh…wait…no, she just disappeared. Is she perhaps living with the tent people in SF.

    • Replies: @Bel Riose
  182. @Pericles

    So why should the Jewish Silicon Valley VC industry behave any differently?

    Given their working hypothesis – that it won’t affect them – and given their fundamentalist take on their circumstances, it makes perfect sense for them to offer their sacrifice of Roseanne on their altar of Leftist Moonbattery.

    But if they had skin in the game, well that would make them Trump acolytes.

  183. Daniel H says:
    @Maciano

    >>Usually people who argue bitcoin to be a scam are over 60, have never used it or don’t understand the technology.

    Why should one need to understand the technology, whatever that is supposed to mean. All I want from my money is to be able to spend it on something, and get a product or service in return. The very fact that the price of a bitcoin relative to the dollar zigs and zags every which way, and in large leaps makes a mockery of the claim that it is a stable store of value. You’re probably a shill, holding lots of bitcoin, a good chunk of which is underwater. I bought $200 of bitcoin last year and didn’t look at if for months. When I looked at it, it has appreciated in price to $1,200. I sold that sucker right away, and have never looked back. Ha, bitcoin is gonna get you sucker.

    • Replies: @Precious
  184. Lagertha says:

    2% of humans are psychopaths. Check out Hare’s Checklist,…. holy crap!

    No wonder I didn’t trust sooooo many cool people in the 80′s. I read Hare’s Checklist when it was first circulating in “book sales/brick and mortar stores.”

    All of you, need to read stuff and research everyday news thru many platforms…don’t be an idiot.

  185. Daniel H says:
    @Jim Christian

    Chelsea’s got that power stance thing going in that photo.

    • Replies: @Jim Christian
  186. Lagertha says:

    Sarah Saunders is a true-blue Shied Maiden. I adore her and want to keep hearing her.

  187. MarkinLA says:
    @Maciano

    Bitcoin is no different than offshore sports books. You have money as long as the guy running it decides to keep it open. He some day just disappears with your money like the guys running bitcoin exchanges do every now and then.

  188. “However, you aren’t going to see your doctor for another year, so unless something threatening is evident, you generally don’t have much opportunity to review your latest results with him until your next appointment in twelve months.

    It’s a hell of a way to run a railroad.”

    Are you aware of patient portals? Some of them allow you to review your lab results.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_portal#Features_and_benefits

  189. @AndrewR

    after plowing Ms. Holmes.

    Is English your 2nd or 3rd language? No one reading Judges 14:18, “And he said unto them, If ye had not plowed with my heifer, ye had not found out my riddle” would make the faux pas you posted.

    • Replies: @AndrewR
  190. Big Bill says:
    @sfoil

    The original goal (shown in her one cheesy drawing in the provisional app 60/501,847) was a small pellet surrounded by a semipermeable membrane with an “osmotic pump” inside to suck in body fluids through the membrane.

    Dozens (hundreds?) of chemically treated “microbeads” were also inside the pellet across which beads the body fluids could be pumped. Each microbead would fluoresce based on its interaction with body fluids. A sensing computer inside the pellet would read the fluorescence and interpret the results (this was the “testing” part).

    A couple of wifi-like chips also inside the pellet would talk to a hand-held display (iPhone/android tablet) and a remote computer. Another computer inside the pellet would determine what drugs you needed and pump them through the membrane into your body. There was also a battery inside the pellet to drive the osmotic pump, the communications chips, computers, beads, and the drug pump.

    Basically, you swallow her pellet, wait for the test results to appear on your smart phone, see what diseases you have and get them treated automatically. Her miracle pill would last for days or weeks as it percolated through your digestive tract, and would store and release pharmaceuticals to treat bunches of different diseases: infections, cancer, genetic problems, etc.

    Based on this utterly bogus Star Trek type gadget, Stanford gave her some “President’s Award” and some Stanford prof (who damn well knew it was completely bogus) started pimping her to the old farts scross the street at the Hoover Institute.

    Somehow I don’t think Balwani was her first (or only) boyfriend at Stanford. But we will never, ever know.

    • Replies: @Lot
  191. I’m still not convinced that she’s not a man; that voice and the turtlenecks to cover the adam’s apple.

    • Replies: @Lot
  192. @Jim Don Bob

    Sailer should definitely publish collections of his excellent articles. Give the books good titles and add a little previously unpublished stuff…

  193. @Simon in London

    Either way, it’s wood, resonant wood is wood nevertheless.

  194. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @Clyde

    Speaking of Harvey, one of his accusers, Rose McGowan was just arrested for cocaine possession

    • Replies: @Jim Don Bob
    , @Clyde
  195. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @sfoil

    I read some science fiction books that had pilots hooked up to some kind of IV machine that kept them awake.

  196. @sabril

    With regard to Kissinger, if not all of the rest, it may have been net-good to take his money out of circulation for awhile. Kissinger is an excellent example of an intellectual illusionist who creates smoke without fire.

  197. istevefan says:

    OT – I am hearing a buzz about Speaker Ryan trying to cram a last ditch amnesty down our throats before he leaves. Get ready to call the Capitol to jam the phone lines. I hope Trump won’t let them put it by us.

    • Replies: @Flip
  198. Lot says:

    AZ state rep mentions school deseg isn’t working because “not enough white kids to go around.”

    http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/news/arizona-legislator-immigration-demographic-change-represent-an-existential-threat-to-the-us-10517227

    • Replies: @Big Bill
  199. Anon[326] • Disclaimer says:
    @Stabilo

    Elizabeth was a childhood friend of Tim Draper’s son.

    Her father held moderately high level jobs within the federal govt, which may explain the number of statesman on the board.

    As far as startup founders go, you could not be more connected.

  200. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @L Woods

    They’re probably gay or speak Farsi Russian Mandarin or some hard language.

    Interesting thing about the Stare Department. It still has an entrance exam. Whites women who have the same or higher raw score than the average White male raw score are re classified as White men or “ White Male Profile” and the same points are subtracted from the preference scale as White men.

    Whites women whose raw scores are lower than the average raw score of White men remain classified as White women, just above White men and high scoring White women on the affirmative action scale.

    What’s the raw score? It’s the score on the test before they start subtracting points from the score of White men and women and adding as much as 40 out of 100 points to the scores of blacks.

    And we’re paying their salaries.

    As for the people of color, the Hispanics are probably loyal Americans. But I highly doubt the Asians & Arabs can be trusted. The blacks will spend their career sitting in cubicles processing visa applications and given endless extensions on their foreign language fluency requirement

    • Replies: @L Woods
  201. @uh-huh

    Maybe that’s why she was so good in Winter’s Boner.

  202. @Maciano

    Bitcoin isn’t a scam at all, the other cryptocurrencies are all hype.

    And right there is the reason why it’s a scam. After all – why Bitcoin in particular?

    The notion behind bitcoin is that it is a hard currency. There is an absolute, limited amount of bitcoin in the universe. Like gold, once it has been mined than that’s it.

    The problem is that although there is a limited amount of bitcoin in the world, anyone at all can mint a cryptocurrency of their own. Bitcoins are limited; cryptocurrencies are not. So it all turns on the usual fiat-money proposition: “Our pieces of paper are real money! Don’t believe what all the other people with their own pieces of paper say!”

    • Agree: Lot
  203. @bomag

    I get the vibe that conspiracy advocates harbor a firm belief that the central authorities have the power to greatly improve our lives if they would just turn their attention away from planning spectacular crimes and start planning spectacular infrastructure projects.

    The problem is that the power that the elites have is really only any use for getting more power. All this power, and it can’t actually be used to accomplish anything. It’s rather the dilemma that attractive women have.

  204. @Charles Pewitt

    He’s right about the TV contract. Soon-to-be-ex Senator Bob Corker is probably negotiating with CNN and MSNBC right now. Jeff Flake, too.

    • Replies: @Charles Pewitt
  205. @Pat Boyle

    Yeah but that doesn’t take away from his real achievements, I don’t think he’s actually involved in the Hyperloop, its just an idea he had, he’s not the first person to try and improve trains transport ect

    • Replies: @Pat Boyle
  206. Anonymous[506] • Disclaimer says:
    @Rod1963

    As a kid, I ‘collected’ a lot of shit that no one else had an interest in because I got dragged to garage sales by my mother, who was a junkasaurus. Along with Polaroid cameras (worthless then and now) and the odd bit of vintage tube electronics (much of which, such as tube hi fi and guitar amplifiers, a few pieces of test and RF gear but not many, and especially Restrum Erectric anything, has real value now, but of course most of which I long have been parted with) I had a lot of John Birch Society and similar “conspiracy” literature. In books like None Dare Call It Treason and None Dare Call It Conspiracy they talked about “Insiders” who were said to be much like Mafiosi, but people born into wealth and given fine educations, who would worm their way into positions of power and influence and subvert society at large.

    From the vantage point of 40-60 years later, reading these books again makes me realize they were right to a point. Most of the dire predictions they made have either come true, or were the obvious intent of Democrat and Establishment Republican politicians but have been thwarted by some level of grassroots resistance. Yet what surprises me is that they didn’t take into account just how stupid these titans of malevolence are much of the time.

    Even after the fall of the Soviet Union, top KGB spymasters still believed that the US had a secret committee that met to determine what factories made what and how much of it, and expressed frustration that for all of their many military intelligence successes, they never did find out who was on this committee or where its secret meetings occurred, despite immense intelligence resources having gone into finding it. Surely, if the KGB could get disaffected submariners or defense contractor employees to turn over America’s best kept cryptologic and nuclear secrets-and they did-one would think that this economic committee would be discoverable. Since they never did, they imagined an incredibly elaborate mechanism guarded by measures beyond anything the CIA or NSA fielded or that they themselves used. So a great amount of finite intelligence gathering and processing capacity was wasted that otherwise would have gone into getting material of real use against the Main Enemy.

    The Theranos debacle is yet more proof that our enemies don’t need to worry very much about the brilliance of our top leaders.

    • Replies: @TWS
  207. Anonymous[506] • Disclaimer says:
    @njguy73

    Jagger may have moves, but not swagger.
    That was a Frank Sinatra thing.

    Then again, a female friendly-acquaintance of mine who fronts a rock and roll band was once said to “Move like Jagger” by an overenthusiastic fan. I told said fan-a young girl who had little experience an these things-that as much as I liked the old gal, she most certainly did not move like Jagger. Her stage moves were more along the line of Ann B. Davis (‘Alice’ the maid on The Brady Bunch).

    Great voice, great songs, and behind her one of the truly great drummers in rock and roll. But she’s a klutz and if the crowd isn’t enthusiastic, she chokes.

  208. Anonymous[506] • Disclaimer says:
    @Mike Zwick

    I hope your office chair is from Martin-Baker. You might need to bail out of there in a hurry someday.

  209. @uh-huh

    Rene Zellwegger is a better choice. Amazing they will allow Hollywood to show a woman in such a poor light given the #metoo movement owns the joint now. Any chance they make E-Hoe look like a victim of the men who handed over the hundreds of millions?

  210. @Buffalo Joe

    He’s a Colonel. From back before the castration.

  211. black sea says:
    @Mr. Anon

    Perhaps the judgment of such notable people isn’t all that good in matters of defence and foreign policy either.

    Gambling with other people’s money and other people’s lives has a corrupting effect.

  212. OT – black(not very) police officer says inequality to blame for London crime wave.

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/jun/14/rising-is-symptom-of-inequality-says-senior-met-chief

    I’d have thought the same factor is both the cause of inequality AND of high crime levels – a surplus of labour, with much of that labour coming from low-trust or high-crime places.

    In other news (the trial went unreported afaik)

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/jun/13/eight-members-of-oxford-grooming-ring-jailed-for-sexual-assault

  213. eric says:
    @NOTA

    Madoff’s investors generally thought Madoff was ripping off his brokerage clients and passing that off to the fund. He had a big brokerage, and if you jumped in front of orders continually you can make a lot of money. That’s illegal, but they figure found a way to hide his tracks, thus the poor statement records didn’t bother these investors at all–less for the SEC to study. The investment story made no sense, but they knew he couldn’t say what they all thought to be true. So, don’t shed too many tears for them, as most just got ripped off by a guy who they thought was ripping off someone else (though there were truly innocent investors too, I’d estimate less than half).

    • Agree: Jim Don Bob
  214. El Dato says:

    OT: Military misdemeanours and Crimes against Holocaustianity by Aussies in Afghanistan:

    Leaked picture of Australian soldiers flying Nazi swastika in Afghanistan sparks scandal

    Obligatory quote by the ADF inside.

    (Maybe they were cosplaying as the LRDG trying to confuse Rommel’s troops?)

  215. @candid_observer

    Simple: relevance and success trumps (heh) wokeness. This is likely a pretty good script with a juicy role for her, with a good director attached, about a topical subject bound to attract attention. She could get a hit movie and an Oscar nomination of out it. It worked out that way for The Social Network, another film about a Silicon Valley sociopath.

  216. Disagree with the implication of your opening sentence. Do mainstream political parties play such a crucial role in shaping metapolitics? I doubt it. Leftist NGOs are quite capable of pushing their agenda without a government talking head promoting their views.

    The left was taking over the universities while the Democrats were still supporting Jim Crow.

    • Replies: @TWS
  217. @robot

    About a year or two ago I had to make the decision that, although I enjoyed about half the writers and would gladly have endured the typical adverts in the sidebars, or even one that annoyingly popped up an de could be dismissed when I initially loaded the page, I simply could no longer endure the nightmare Taki’s site has become. I don’t even bother reading Steve’s long-form pieces there, even when, as here, the topic is very interesting to me. It’s a shame, really….

  218. Anon[322] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anon

    I don’t think he’s talking about computers here when he says silicon chip. When you send your spit to 23 and Me for a genetic analysis, they take a solution containing it and wash it over a special silicon chip that has been somehow micro printed with gene sequences of interest. These are somehow baited with RNA, is it?, and if those sequences are present in your spit they latch into the respective slots in the silicon chip. They will also emit a micro flash of light upon latching. A digital camera records the flashes, and sends the gene sequences you matched to a computer that then outputs how much Neanderthal and Ashkenazi and Igbo you are.

    I am not a scientist, and the above description is my naturalistic attempt to restate what I remember from David Reich’s recent book. It all sounded so science fiction to me, but they’ve got it working at an industrial level.

    But to venture investors who knew about 23 and Me, et al.’s, technology, you can imagine that a story about a similar system involving blood analysis could be convincing. Wash a blood containing solution over a special chip, record which proteins and cells and viruses and whatnot latch onto their respective slots, and, voila, a very cheap, industrialized medical testing system. The problem is that it seems that it didn’t pan out in practice.

  219. @Big Bill

    This is exactly what I’ve reiterated a hojillion times around here to people like that one Chinaman who constantly bragged about how “China files more patent applications and has more patents granted than America” and so on. One can obtain a patent for a personal pair of chiropterous wings of the kind commonly purchased by Wile E. Coyote from the Acme Corp.

    Patent examiners are rubber stamps, and their entire system is geared toward processing as many applications as quickly as possible.

    • Replies: @Big Bill
  220. @Charles Pewitt

    Mattis is supposed to be some kind of hard-charging soldier’s general in the vein of Andrew or Stonewall Jackson, but he’s also supposed to be some kind of noble, chaste, confirmed bachelor who foreswears women to better focus on war. I don’t buy it. A lot of guys like this truly do foreswear marriage and family and romantic, tender love and such because of the demands of the most challenging deployments which can ensure promotion to the top and to spare themselves strained marriages or because they are so hard-charging they don’t go in for prams and such. But those guys also tend to have healthy, even rowdy, sexual appetites and get plenty of action in their downtime; many are downright lechers and playboys (“Hey baby. Yeah, I’m from the base. I’m a SEAL / fighter pilot / etc. Wanna have a drink?”)

    These misgivings, combined with Mattis’ demeanor, do I confess lead me to wonder….

    • Replies: @Jack Hanson
    , @TWS
  221. @uh-huh

    Jennifer Lawrence is stupid and indeed vapid; she is annoying as Hell.

    But she is stunningly gorgeous to any man with eyes, and nothing about her appearance suggests she is stupid; it certainly doesn’t suggest she is from a hollow in Kentucky. In any event, hollows in Kentucky are not particularly rife with stupid people; in fact, they produce some of the most intelligent and beautiful people on the planet. If you seek a font of stupidity, look to Africa; large cities like San Francisco, Portland, or Washington; or nations like Saudi Arabia, Guatemala, and Indonesia.

    Or comments like yours.

    • Replies: @Anon
  222. Anon[722] • Disclaimer says:
    @Moral Stone

    The whole Holmes/Balwani leadership duo should have been a huge red flag, even without knowing they were sleeping together.

    Why?

    • Replies: @Moral Stone
  223. Nope Steve not going to read the whole thing. I won’t read Taki Mag after they removed the comment section. F Taki Mag. I did get pleasure in noting lately that Drudge removed the link to Taki Mag. Guess Drudge removed Taki like Taki removed his commenters.

    • Replies: @International Jew
  224. jacopo says:

    The board composition would have been helpful to garner DOD and VA contracts as a fallback to unload their magic box technology on the US taxpayer. That’s probably just a coincidence.

  225. @MEH 0910

    Huh, and I was so proud of myself too. Oh well

  226. Brutusale says:
    @njguy73

    My friend’s kid is a sophomore at MIT. He was at my friend’s 60th with his girlfriend, a decent enough looking girl who’s also a MIT cheerleader. She explained the concept of being “MIT hot” to my girlfriend.

    • Replies: @Buffalo Joe
    , @Jim Don Bob
  227. @Anonym

    The Peter Principle breaks down with good hiring, which a lot of good management will be good at.

    True, but this is the exception, not the rule. At scale in all human societies, the Peter Principle rules because of, regression to the mean, among other reasons. Also, those small, dynamic, flat organizations that are good at these sorts of hiring dynamics become dominated over time by the Peter Principle after they achieve success.

    I am not sure that the same competitive pressure exists in government, but I’ve seen enough competent government employees to know that the libertarian concept that all government employees are like DMV employees is false.

    Agree; I have been affiliated with the Defense Department for over 30 years, and have seen enough good, competent folks as well. However, I would also say that the DOD is one of the better examples of the Peter Principle at work (but, its mission is serious enough that it is not the DMV).

  228. TheJester says:
    @Harry Baldwin

    At the same time, it’s hard for anyone, male or female, to keep their looks after their mid-50s no matter what they do. You’re gonna look old, that’s all there is to it.

    Agree … but, oh, women so often try, try, and try to look 18 years old the rest of their lives.

    My favorite pastime when watching TV and movies is to point out which actresses or celebrities have had facelifts, other plastic surgeries and/or have been heavily Botoxed.

    The tell-tell sign of a facelift is bulging veins in the neck. The tell-tell sign of Botox is the fact that nothing moves above the lips.

    The highly processed actresses might think they look younger when looking in a mirror or sitting for a formal portrait … but they hide nothing when animated. They look like aging women pretending they are younger women. It doesn’t work. It can look hideous … because it doesn’t work.

    Longevity in “Hollywood” is best achieved by actresses who can age gracefully and transition to playing older roles.

  229. @YetAnotherAnon

    No, most probably were that good – because otherwise someone better would have beaten them. Admittedly, they DID mostly have to be born to the right people to even be able to compete.

    I agree its a little bit of both being good and lucky. But, that said, even the “really were that good” types are, at the end of the day, mere mortals. As the old saying goes, “no one here gets out alive”.

    I tend not to view the “really that good” in any kind of hagiographic sense. At the end, Napolean was a broken and sick man. I don’t think Wellington or Blucher were all that great as generals; but they were competent enough by 1815, and had enough of a critical mass of mid-level management in the field armies by 1815, to match the French and win by weight of numbers. You could probably make the case that, by attrition, in 1815 the French Army was staffed with mid- and senior-level leaders that were fair examples of the Peter Principle at work.

  230. @DFH

    I am closer to 50 than 60, but I agree with Harry Baldwin on this. Having a high school age 2-sport son, I see plenty of young ladies, and they just aren’t all that. Some of the girl athletes are in good shape, but the overwhelming majority of 18-22 year-olds are plain Janes and generally more overweight than when I was that age (late 70′s/early 80′s). The 20-30 year-olds have more tats than they should have, and aren’t much better. But I am no Brad Pitt either, as is the overwhelming number of young men at the same age cohort as these gals. I am not surprised that marriage and birth rates are declining. Maybe its just remembering my youth through rose-colored glasses, but I think diet, exercise and technology changes society-wide (and the concurrent cultural effects they have had) have been a net negative on the most current generations (millennials, post-millenials).

    • Replies: @Antlitz Grollheim
  231. Could someone please copy and paste the text here?

    I am boycotting Taki’s Mag and thus cannot read it.

  232. Jack D says:

    I predict that the movie will be a disaster and nothing like the book (see Bonfire of the Vanities). Jennifer Lawrence’s handlers would never allow her to play Holmes truthfully (at best they will show her as having outsmarted all the men – an ultra smart con woman – Hollywood loves to make heroes/heroines out of cons who outsmart the squares). And forget about an honest portrayal of Sonny – by the time they are done Sunny (if he appears in the movie at all) will be a white guy and 20 years younger than he really is and Holmes will be pulling his strings rather than vice versa. It will be turned into some sort of you-go girl feminist parable. The only part that will be true is showing the old white guy backers as doddering old fools. But rather than being victims of the zeitgeist they will be shown as having been outsmarted by the ultra clever Lawrence despite their sexism and sexual harassment of Holmes.

    The alternative – Holmes as Sunny’s front woman/bed toy, is too unpleasant to contemplate. Who wants to see THAT movie?

    • Replies: @Sabril
    , @snorlax
  233. Miss Holmes gave superlative snow-jobs,
    And perhaps even better you-know jobs—
    Husky-voiced hummers
    Dispensed to all comers;
    For foot-fetishists, maybe a toe-job.

  234. BTW, I’ve just learned from the internet that if you think you’ve ever had a bad reaction from the MSG in Chinese food, you’re a racist and xenophobe.

    https://www.facebook.com/fortherecordbymic/videos/168162080516743/

  235. Sabril says:
    @Jack D

    Yeah it’s hard to imagine Holmes not being played in a sympathetic light even though it seems she’s a really bad person.

  236. OFF TOPIC

    We all love Trumpy, but Trumpy has made himself somewhat unlovable with his weakness on the immigration question.

    Trumpy must call for an immigration moratorium and Trumpy must deport all illegal alien invaders immediately.

    Trumpy will have to be challenged in the GOP presidential primary to keep his feet to the fire on immigration. The candidate who challenges Trumpy must make it clear that he loves Trumpy, but that a little nudge seems to be necessary to get Trumpy back on the right track on immigration.

    Steve King has great respect for President Trump, but maybe Steve King will be the man to challenge Trump to help Trump make better decisions on immigration.

    We don’t all love Trump, but I used that for rhetorical effect. And yes, it’s awkward with all this love crap, but Trumpy said he loved everybody in New Hampshire and he won the NH GOP primary. So, there’s that!

    I only love Trumpy when he’s lovable.

    Steve King says:

  237. @Brutusale

    Brute, trying to wrap my mind around “MIT Cheerleader” Clap hands. Happy bounce and yell …”Gimme an E” “Gimme an M” “Gimme a C squared” Wadda got Wadda got…”Energy” “Go team Go!”

  238. OFF TOPIC

    Merkel Must Go!

    • Replies: @Dieter Kief
  239. Theranos is just the Pets.com of the latter part of this decade.

  240. OFF TOPIC

    Merkel Must Go

    Lady from Maine — Diane Joslyn — has excellent observation about Merkel and European Union.

    Merkel and Macron must be removed from power.

    The EU Must Be Destroyed

    The ECB Must Be Destroyed

  241. Bleuteaux says:
    @bomag

    Yes, this is the central fantasy of every progressive.

  242. snorlax says:
    @Jack D

    Sunny won’t appear in the movie and the Tyler Shultz character will be JLaw’s love interest.

    JLaw will have tragic backstory of evil white men sexually harassing her and telling her girls can’t do STEM. So she sets out to prove them all wrong!!!

    There will be a made-up plotline about THE RUSSIANS investing in Theranos at the behest of the old white male Republicans (names changed for libel purposes). Various tense scenes as JLaw tries to escape RUSSIAN MOB hitmen. In the end JLaw is made the scapegoat and the GOP RUSSIAN COLLUSION is covered up.

  243. Why do Americans compulsively make fake movies about everything even mildly sensational & contemporary? Why not just let it go?

  244. Bleuteaux says:
    @Anonymous

    Yes. One of the least stated reasons for more women in the workplace and the flood of H1-Bs / foreigners by upper class WASPs is to eliminate competition from middle and lower class white men, to introduce discord in the workplace that keeps the latter distracted to the point of despair, and to create a willing group of sycophants to sing the former’s praises.

  245. @Brutusale

    And what, pray tell, is “MIT hot”?

    • Replies: @I, Libertine
    , @Flip
    , @Big Bill
  246. donut says:
    @DFH

    “When you’re 60+, I imagine virtually any 20 year old woman is attractive.”

    Maybe when you are in your 30′s or 40′s not so much by the time you’re in your 50′s .
    When I had just turned 50 a young girl in her 20′s moved in below me . She was a real stunner with an MBA from The Wharton School of Business . A complete dingbat . I took her out once and couldn’t get her home fast enough . She had mastered the technique of being able to keep talking w/o a pause even while inhaling . I avoided her for about 6mos. thereafter . One beautiful fall day the sky was brilliant blue the leaves were luminous in their colors and as I stepped out the door of my apt. building there she was in a black sheath dress . She was really breathtaking . I thought to myself “perhaps I was hasty , too judgemental”. The next time I passed by her place and she was outside I went up to talk to her . Ten minutes of her prattle was all it took before I made my exit .
    I decided that the only way it would work would be if she knocked on my door and said “f**k me like the animal I am” . Needless to say…

  247. BB753 says:
    @Andrew M

    I suspect many start-ups are money-laundering fronts.

  248. @njguy73

    Isn’t it natural from an HBD perspective for smart men to find intelligence attractive in women? Of course it is, because smart mothers are more likely to contribute genetically for intelligence. It is foolish for a smart man, or any man really, to mate with a stupid woman.

    Nevertheless, lot’s of men, even smart and successful ones, are happy to marry gold-plated trophies that are hollow inside. Here on this blog, men often sound like all that matters is how a woman looks and what basic, reproductive functions she can perform. That is stupidity.

    Find a mate with a balance of looks and intelligence, and you have found a desirable combination of health, fertility and brains, a sure bet for success. There is an optimal point for all that, and it is nice to find it. Some form of STEM-pretty equation is the true attractiveness equation, then. If not STEM, then IQ-pretty would be good, probably even better.

    On the first date with the woman I chose to marry, I found out she had a mathematics degree from one of Europe’s most difficult universities. I was blown away in admiration. I never would have guessed that about the pretty young woman in the summer dress. That added points to her hotness for me and still does. After a long and successful bachelorhood, I was not going to spend the rest of my life with a mannequin. I had dated hotter, but never as brilliant. I had found the sweet spot.

  249. BB753 says:
    @DFH

    Past 60, any nubile woman turns a man on.To paraphrase Kissinger, fertility is the ultimate aphrodisiac. Right, Rosie?

  250. Anon[402] • Disclaimer says:

    OT: Famous Stanford prison experiment revealed to have been a fake:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-5842893/Famed-Stanford-prison-experiment-shows-naturally-abuse-power-based-LIES.html

    It’s time to stop protecting white collar criminal researchers for deliberately faking data. Their goal is to gain jobs and grants at universities, meaning these fraudsters are engaged in a crime with actual monetary damage. They should be prosecuted exactly as if they’ve robbed a bank. They’re holding up the progress of civilization by muddling our learning with fake data. I’d love to put all of those who are faking climate data in jail where they belong. It’s the quickest way to kick them out of our colleges and put a stop to their lies where they’re poisoning generation after generation of students. Academic fraud is a massive problem because our society doesn’t want to go after white collar criminals, and once a false orthodoxy becomes inculcated, it’s almost impossible to get rid of.

  251. Lot says:
    @Big Bill

    “Based on this utterly bogus Star Trek type gadget, Stanford gave her some “President’s Award” and some Stanford prof (who damn well knew it was completely bogus) started pimping her to the old farts scross the street at the Hoover Institute.”

    Well done, sir.

  252. Lot says:
    @Johnny Smoggins

    Yeah sometimes low pitch voices on women are sexy. But she has a man-voice, low pitched but also a bunch of subtle male traits, such as a narrow range and steady slow pace.

  253. @Lot

    But that it just one easy test. The idea of using that little amount to perform dozens of more complex ones seems pretty absurd in retrospect.

    I dunno, why does it seem absurd? I’m a pretty well-educated guy (took bio in high school, physics in college, majored in math…) and using the same drop of blood to measure the amount of ten or twenty different substances — red blood cells, white blood cells, glucose, potassium, cholesterol, prostate-specific antigen, etc — doesn’t strike me as implausible on its face. Apparently it is very hard to do (or someone would have done it), but why that is, I have no idea. You could say a drop of blood isn’t much. OK, it’s not much compared to a pint or a gallon. But one drop is enough to contain millions of red blood cells, and for all I know billions of molecules of glucose and whatever else.

    • Replies: @Lot
    , @Big Bill
  254. @njguy73

    Confused. You seem to be on to something. But your equation could require zero as a denominator, which, IIRC, is mathematically impossible. How about: (# of women in the department +1).

    No, I don’t know what possesses me.

    • Replies: @Anon
    , @njguy73
  255. @SimplePseudonymicHandle

    Democrat=Socialist=Communist

    AGREE

    • Replies: @Flip
  256. @Jim Don Bob

    And what sport, pray tell, has MIT cheerleaders?

    • Replies: @Kibernetika
    , @Brutusale
  257. Lot says:
    @International Jew

    Implausible because this was a large, mature and competitive market.

    • Replies: @International Jew
  258. @Malcolm X-Lax

    Weigel was indeed mildly making fun of the corporate media that lavishes money and attention on the Never Trump Goons. Jeff Flake and Bob Corker are two excellent examples of Never Trump Goons lionized and celebrated by the corporate media.

    Weigel, in 2015, wrote an evenhanded piece about why some voters — even Democrat voters — supported Trump in the presidential election. It was good, honest reporting from Weigel.

    Weigel actually talks to real voters at campaign events and spends time trying to understand where they’re coming from and why they support this or that candidate.

    Tweet from 2015:

  259. @Buzz Mohawk

    I see your point, but against the likelihood a smart woman will bear you smarter children, you need to consider the number of children she’s likely to bear. In our culture, as it stands today, a smart girl is encouraged to go for the glory in hypercompetitive fields that seriously depress her likelihood of bearing children.

    So do you want to take your chance on one kid with an expected IQ of 115 (just off the top of my head, starting with parents at 130 and figuring some regression to the mean), or four kids with expected IQ 100? Chances are one of those four kids will be at 115 or so anyway, and there are a lot of other benefits to having a larger family.

    Of course, what kind of personal bond you have with the girl should be way way way ahead of any of these silly statistical considerations.

  260. @Lot

    Technological progress, even impressive technological progress, is not unknown though, even in “large mature…competitive” markets. Think of jet engines, hearing aids, solar panels, batteries, semiconductors…

  261. @Forbes

    Well, most any young woman who’s not fat, these days. The number of young female blimps walking around is astounding.

    These big-as-a-house young broads got big, beefy upper arms like offensive linemen at some Big Ten college football program.

  262. Flip says:
    @JJ Boccabella

    I thought that was still a possibility. Certainly she belongs in jail.

  263. @Anonym

    It’s the blank look and flaccid quality of her expression that makes her look dumb. I have no reason to believe she’s actually quite intelligent.

  264. Flip says:
    @istevefan

    The fake Republicans like Ryan, Romney, and McCain are a bigger threat to the country than the Democrats.

    • Agree: Harry Baldwin
  265. Flip says:
    @Buzz Mohawk

    I much prefer more intelligent women. Looks are pass/fail, but they do have to pass. :)

    • Agree: Jim Don Bob
  266. Flip says:
    @Hippopotamusdrome

    David Horowitz says the Democrats have become a party of communists. He ought to know.

  267. @Anon

    Rose McGowan was just arrested for cocaine possession.

    Interesting. You have to go out of your way these days to get arrested for possession.

    But Rosie’s been going down the Sinead O’Connor road for a while now, so I believe it. It’s too bad – she used to be a babe.

    • Replies: @snorlax
    , @Clyde
  268. Pat Boyle says:
    @(((They))) Live

    Hyperloop is so obviously loopy that it brings everything else of his into question. It’s like inventing a perpetual motion machine. It’s a kind of crank thinking.

    It is beginning to appear that there will indeed be electric cars. Electric appliances have many advantages over internal combustion appliances. For example I have an electric toothbrush, I wouldn’t want one powered by a diesel engine.

    The first major modern effort at making an electric care was by GM. It ran on lead acid batteries so it failed. The Tesla is likely to fail too but which car company will succeed and dominate the market – I don’t know. But I will guess probably Toyota or Volkswagen. Sooner or later the government will stop subsidizing Musk. His genius is for self promotion not technology.

    The important technology is not the automotive mechanism but the batteries.

  269. Flip says:
    @Pat Boyle

    Tesla stock is going to zero. Guaranteed.

    • Agree: Pat Boyle
  270. @eric

    That’s interesting, and I never heard that theory before. Wouldn’t his brokerage business collapse, though, if it was widely known (or thought) that he was getting in front of trades like that?

    • Replies: @Dieter Kief
    , @J.Ross
  271. gp says:

    Well Steve, I read your review yesterday, picked up the book at the library, then couldn’t get to sleep because I could not stop reading the dam thing. Ruined my day today.

    Anyway, just about any techie with at least a few years’ experience can tell you the same kind of Dilbert-Zone stories: Managers who can’t find their own @ss in the dark with both hands. Cute chicks who skate by on looks and boyfriends. Product design based on looks instead of function. Insane unrealistically aggressive project scheduling. Life-sapping crunch. Everybody knows the product is sh!t but can’t say so because they need to be “team players,” or out of a job. Maybe worst of all: gullible customers who will believe anything if you buy them fancy meals and show off fancy toys.

    If I was a customer visiting a tech vendor and saw the vendor was driving a Lamborghini, I’d hop the first plane back home. Why would I, a tech customer, want to pay an extravagant markup to pay for the vendor’s stupid flamboyant toys? Why would I, a tech customer, trust the judgement of a tech vendor chick college dropout who drinks green kale smoothies, wears all black, lives in Palo Alto coffee shops, and doesn’t know the difference between a bit and a byte? I don’t care if she looks like Heather Graham; it’s not like she’s going to boink me, no matter how many of her quack machines I order.

  272. @Autochthon

    Ive asked this question of GO and SES friends of mine who know Mattis, and they say that he’s not gay, just ascetic. A very different type of personality.

  273. Thea says:
    @The preferred nomenclature is...

    They are buying up roadside motels and turning them into filthy, disgusting dumps at an alarming rate. They now own 50% and growing. Road travel has become far less enjoyable as a result.

    They all come from a region in Indian where the clan has been known as inn keepers. They brought India’s sanitary standards with them.

  274. Ms. Holmes specialized in charming elder statesmen…

    She gave good TED?

  275. J.Ross says: • Website

    OT IG locates electoral interference
    >Perhaps the most damaging new revelation in the report, according to multiple people familiar with it, is a previously unreported text message in which Peter Strzok, a key investigator on both the Clinton email case and the investigation of Russia and the Trump campaign, assured an FBI lawyer in August 2016 that “we’ll stop” Trump from making it to the White House.

    >“[Trump’s] not ever going to become president, right? Right?!” the lawyer, Lisa Page, wrote to Strzok.
    “No. No he won’t. We’ll stop it,” Strzok responded.

    >We’ll stop it,”

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-receiving-briefing-ahead-of-public-release-of-report-expected-to-criticize-fbi/2018/06/14/c08c6a5a-6fdf-11e8-bf86-a2351b5ece99_story.html?

  276. gp says:
    @Hockamaw

    Yup. One of the under-appreciated villain groups of the 2008 financial cataclysm was the tens of thousands of fund managers who bought all that derivative crap without reading prospectuses, and without a speck of skepticism. And you know they’re still doing it. Or think of the SEC lawyers with nothing to do all day but surf internet porn. And you know they’re still doing it.

    How can our world even function with all these very highly paid fiduciaries and managers who do absolutely nothing on the job except schmooze each other and jerk off? How the heck do I find a job like that, where I get paid 6-7 figures to do and/or produce absolutely nothing?

  277. @Anonymous

    IS this vocalist famous? I’m thinking of female vocalists in rock bands with amazing drummers and drawing a blank….

  278. Anon[298] • Disclaimer says:
    @I, Libertine

    When there is only one woman in the department she becomes a pole and her attractiveness is unmeasurable.

  279. @Anon

    Because it was a girl who dropped out of Stanford at 19 and a guy who wrote software code running a medical device/blood testing company. Neither of them had any experience or really any business doing it.

    • Replies: @Anonym
  280. @Captain Tripps

    Looking at old interviews of elderly in the 1920s and how hardy they were has convinced me that our diet and lack of exercise in the last 30-40 years has wreaked havoc on the majority of American bodies. It’s really astounding the difference. 90 year olds looked better than many 60 year olds today.

  281. @Pat Boyle

    The Hyperloop can and does work, there is a test track built, so its not the same as perpetual motion, I doubt it will go beyond a test track because like Maglev and other transport ideas its the cost per KM that means it will never get built, in general high speed rail is cheaper and can also work well along normal rail, AFAIK Musk is not involved with the company working on Hyperloop

    As for EVs, I have been watching the tech since the mid 90s so I know all about GM and the other efforts to build and sell EVs to the masses, some of these ideas were good others were a joke but so far only Tesla and maybe Nissan did a good job, GM are getting better and Toyota are still taking the piss with fool cells, I think you might be right about the batteries, people who for some reason hate the idea EVs will probably end up with solar and batteries supplying cheap electricity

    The government don’t subsidise Musk, he gets nothing that other companies don’t get, don’t believe the lies and BS pushed by the likes of Breitbart, they have an agenda that doesn’t include the truth, you can’t see it yet but Musk is maybe five years away from sending people back to the Moon and on to Mars, not bad for a man who arrived in the US with nothing and who’s only genius is self promotion

    • Replies: @Pat Boyle
  282. snorlax says:
    @Jim Don Bob

    IIRC she tried to bring it on an airplane.

    • Replies: @Autochthon
  283. I wonder what Holmes’ natural eye and hair color is. She’s obviously not a natural blonde, and her blue eyes also have that unnatural look of tinted contact lenses. Hence the uncanny valley effect of a person whom we assume is not an android, but looks like one.

  284. L Woods says:
    @Anon

    I believe you’re thinking of the foreign service process — this group of winners is apparently entering the civil service, which AFAIK is more or less identical to the process for any other agency.

  285. @Buzz Mohawk

    Personality also comes into play. Smart is good; aggressive is bad. Unfortunately, these two attributes often come as a package deal.

    As always, it is the moderately-intelligent women – the midwits – who are the most insufferable. In college, they absorb all of the indoctrination that the higher-miseducation system has to offer. Unfortunately, they hit the IQ sour spot – smart enough to understand the leftist drivel, dumb enough to believe it, arrogant enough to spew it endlessly. Only a pure masochist would be willing to endure a long-term relationship with one of these creatures.

    I tend to mesh best with the mousy librarian types – brainy but low-key.

  286. @gp

    Ditto to all that, plus I’ve seen my share of fake and semi-fake “demos”.

  287. eah says:

    Corporate malfeasance of another kind:

  288. sabril says:
    @sayless

    The upcoming Holmes movie will have a vignette or two, however brief, of suffering under the patriarchy/sexism, which will set her up as a sympathetic character gone over to the dark side. But maybe not?

    Seems to me one of the producers’ biggest fears would be that they make a movie which is interpreted as sending the message that girls can’t make it on merit and need to resort to sex appeal and/or fraud. That would provoke a huge feminist freakout. So I’m pretty confident that to be on the safe side, the producers will paint Holmes in a flattering light.

    By the way, have you seen the Wikipedia page for Holmes? She’s currently described as an “American entrepreneur and inventor” and not as an accused confidence artist.

  289. J.Ross says: • Website

    OT DON’T LOOK AT ME! DON’T YOU PABSTBLUERIBBON LOOK AT ME!

    >Netflix film crews ‘banned from looking at each other for longer than five seconds‘ in #metoo crackdown

    >Netflix has introduced new anti-harassment training in the wake of the #metoo movement that rocked Hollywood and seriously disrupted production on its House of Cards show.

    >New rules imposed on set reportedly include no looking at anyone for longer than five seconds, no lingering hugs, no flirting and no asking for a colleague’s phone number.

    >”Everyone was spoken to about #MeToo,” an on-set runner currently working on the new season of Black Mirror told The Sun.

    https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/tv/news/netflix-sexual-harassment-training-rules-me-too-flirting-on-set-a8396431.html

  290. I spent some time with someone who was involved in help8ng them try to navigate regulatory stuff about a year ago. They worked with Holmes directly, even taking calls from her when we were hanging out. I would write more about our convo but it seems a bit scurrilous to do so. They did seem to think it was legit tech

  291. @Jim Christian

    Imagine having sex with either of these two.

    Gak!

  292. Precious says:
    @Daniel H

    The very fact that the price of a bitcoin relative to the dollar zigs and zags every which way, and in large leaps makes a mockery of the claim that it is a stable store of value.

    Right, for something to become a medium of exchange, aka “money”, it has to have a stable value over time. So far bitcoin and its like are a speculation, and whatever else they do become remains to be seen.

  293. I still cant fathom how she fooled Walgreen’s

  294. @International Jew

    Wouldn’t his brokerage business collapse, though, if it was widely known (or thought) that he was getting in front of trades like that?

    Normally yes – but – : – not if he would have been, what those clients “eric” points at, had hoped for – the perfect – – “dealmaker” (= scum).

  295. slumber_j says:
    @GHOULQ

    If you’re producing a movie like this, a big part of the reason you buy the book rights is to insure yourself against lawsuits from other authors. In this case, the author of the book in question is also the person who originally dredged up a lot of the facts, so it makes even more sense to pay him.

  296. @I, Libertine

    Great nick, and a great Shep reference! Excelsior!

    “And speaking of bad blood, this WOR, N.Y.”

  297. @inertial

    They didn’t win anything. They just happened to be in office when the USSR crashed for its own internal reasons.

    Wrong. Reagan engineering the collapse. Just as Babe Ruth called the home run he was about to hit, Reagan called the collapse of the Soviet Union, and then made it happen.

    You closet communists are a dishonest, venal, contemptible den of ungrateful vipers.

    • Replies: @Jim Don Bob
    , @inertial
  298. @snorlax

    Like he wrote: “You have to gin out of your way [being a dumbass] to get arrested [for possessing small amounts of drugs for personal consumption].”

    I never understand this. I have friends who work behind the scenes in entertainment, traveling the world with rock-stars and such, who use recreational drugs and easily avoid trouble with the law by following the most basic common sense. Yet celebrities with the money and connections to make avoiding trouble even easier for them (e.g., arrange to pick up some cocaine at your destination; Hell, you could probably have a handler deliver it to your hotel with complete plausible deniability until you were safely snorting it!).

    Truly epic dumb-assery in these cases.

  299. Bel Riose says:
    @Lagertha

    Ideally, both you and Rosie would also be equipped with a Scold’s Bridle.

    • LOL: Kylie
  300. @Pat Boyle

    And battery technology has not significantly improved in decades. The real winner would be hydrogen fuel cells such as Hyundai has created, but which are prohibitively costly. If a way could be found to make them cheap enough, both electric and combustion engines would be a joke overnight. I’m not qualified to say how viable ever making the fuel cells cheaper is, but I do know enough about lithium-ion and other extant battery technologies to say they are crap for automobiles operating at range and over time; they are too heavy, too expensive, and not robust enough to compete with combustion unless and until petroleum gets a lot more precious…which it may soon enough, now that all of Africa is moving to Europe and half of India and China to North America….

  301. BB753 says:
    @njguy73

    One day we might want to find out if the blue pills still work past a certain age. Harvey Weinstein had to shoot himself a vasodilator solution straight in the penis to achieve an erection, so perhaps Viagra does not work for everyone at any age. I hope you’re not dining as you read this.

  302. @Thea

    Ain’t this the truth.

    Reading reviews on chain motels before picking one has become mandatory if you don’t want to sleep in unlaundered sheets. You also learn to notice the very bright line between chains with actual QC (Marriott), and those that are winging it.

  303. Big Bill says:
    @Autochthon

    The Examiners did not rubber stamp her claims. They rejected her claims. They told her that microbeads are old. Wifi is old. Semipermeable plastics are old. Osmotic pumps are old. Pharmaceutical reservoirs are old. Hand-held displays are old. Batteries are old. Remote computers are old. All the things in her claim were old.

    You can buy a room full of off-the-shelf medical test equipment and do pretty much everything she claimed her gadget did. And the patent examiners told her so.

    What she did not put in her claims was the incredible novelty, the magic, the hypnotic gob-smacking genius stuff: that she had, all by herself, figured out how to put that huge roomful of test equipment into a tiny pellet that you could swallow.

    If she had done that — i.e. if the last element of her patent claim was, ” … and it all fits inside a 4mm x 4mm x 8mm capsule” — they would likely have [1] demanded she show them the pellet in person, or [2] rejected her detailed description for “not enabling [the claims]” or [3] rejected her claim because her invention “required undue experimentation” to actually build it.

    Metaphorically speaking, she “claimed” the submarine in “Fantastic Voyage” (1966 scifi film) and left out the part that she figured out how to shrink the sub to microscopic size.

    • Replies: @Autochthon
  304. Big Bill says:
    @Lot

    Yet another secret iSteve reader!

  305. J.Ross says: • Website

    OT Member of European Parliament’s mic cut off after mentioning Tommy Robinson.

    • Replies: @Charles Pewitt
  306. Big Bill says:
    @eric

    Classic “affinity con”.

  307. @SimplePseudonymicHandle

    Your wide-eyed naivete regarding the omni-competence of government to solve all social and economic problems is touching – just what I expect from the uninformed, the stupid, and the malicious.

    Democrats have denied us the right to follow our own conscience, and have insisted that we follow the dictates of their collective conscience – exactly the program of the communists.

    That there are Republicans that understand the consolidation of power in the government, and have exploited that corruption of power to line their own pockets is exactly what we expect from humanity. You can blame them for being whores, but it isn’t just Republicans who are willing to put their interests above those of the people. Cast out the current crop of selfish politicians, and you will find that, just like dandelions, another crop appears in their stead.

    The problem has nothing to do with the law. It has everything to do with the failure of the progressive project. Let us hope that it is just your shallowness that prevents you from seeing our political landscape as it actually is.

  308. J.Ross says: • Website
    @International Jew

    >We have to do X!
    >>We can’t do X, it’s unethical and, in the long term, not profitable (and potentially disastrous).
    >It’s profitable in the short term!
    >>Sure, so are pyramid schemes.
    >All our competitors are doing X and are now showing short-term X-profits to their boards. What’s your brilliant explanation for why we have to be the only ones with ethics?
    >>… we have to do X.

  309. bartok says:
    @Rod1963

    From the looks of it Silicon Valley is all but dead in terms of real innovation.

    This is exactly the wrong conclusion from Theranos. Theranos raised zero money from big-name VC firms. All the big bio-med VCs passed on the opportunity (likely because Theranos refused their due-diligence requests).

    The purpose of VC money is to fund the future largest-market-capitalization companies of the world. Look at the stock markets of the world, see which ones were venture-funded, and tell me again what you said about VCs’ judgment skills?

  310. Big Bill says:
    @Jim Don Bob

    Back when I wandered through Cambridge, “MIT Hot” was about 5 [on a hotness scale of 1-10]. YMMV.

  311. bartok says:
    @gp

    it’s not like she’s going to boink me, no matter how many of her quack machines I order.

    Are you sure that’s the case for seven-figure technology procurement?

    • LOL: Autochthon
  312. @Lot

    I think Holmes has had inept voice coaching (or maybe she just decided to try to alter her voice herself) in order to sound more authoritative and in-control, and maybe to correct for the awful vocal affectations of women from her generation, i.e. uptalk and vocal fry.

    I recall on an earlier thread on Holmes there were a couple of videos linked showing a younger Holmes who couldn’t quite maintain control over her voice; after she had talked for a while, her pitch started to rise, and much more feminine speech patterns seeped back in.

    In later recordings, in addition to maintaining the uncanny low pitch, she does this clipping-the-last-syllable thing in which every phrase she utters ends on a short, sharp, downward note. She sounds just like Barack Obama.

    But here’s what I find strange: if Holmes is a vampish adventuress who led around her aging male cheering squad by the power of her blonde sexiness, then why affect such a manly voice and demeanor? Or was she all soft sweet talk in board meetings with Kissinger and the boys, with the mannishness reserved for her public face? It doesn’t quite add up, and that’s part of what makes this whole story so fascinating.

    Finally, I wonder if Jennifer Lawrence will try to replicate Holmes’s voice and mannerisms, or instead will depict her as a much hotter and more feminine ingenue.

    • Replies: @McFly
  313. @Forbes

    Just to cheer you up, I was at my kid’s swim lessons the other day and watched the young water polo team practicing. Water polo is quite a big deal here. Anyway, the kids all lined up along the edge and about 90% of them were fat, mostly boys but a few girls too. Is that a new ideal body type for this sport? I was appalled at the children of the middle class all needing to lose 50 lbs when they’re only 11 or 12.

  314. OT: Question: I’ve just assumed Peter Strzok and Lisa Page are jewish. The physiognomy suggests they are. Anyone know for sure?

  315. @Anonym

    And don’t forget that a movie can tap into primal reactionary archetypes and still get spun in the press as a perfect progressive morality tale. It used to be that when I saw an actor giving an interview as if they hadn’t seen their own movie ( e.g. https://web.archive.org/web/20111104055417/partialobjects.com/2011/11/4-unintentionally-revealing-things-about-in-time/ ) I thought they were just being completely obtuse, but I’m starting see that an ability to make yourself believe whatever is necessary to believe for a particular performance (in a movie or in an interview) is what it means to get into character. An actress can play a character with zero agency whatsoever and claim the role is a big win for feminism. Wakanda can be nationalist and anti-immigrant and somehow that will send a message to all those bigoted meanies who voted for Trump. Get Out can be… well I won’t even start. The best way to make a powerful impact on popular audiences is to appeal to their id but let them leave the theater thinking you’ve validated their ego and superego.

    • Replies: @Anonym
    , @Anonymous
  316. marat says:
    @Forbes

    Several people have pointed out that venous blood is not “equivalent” to arteriole blood, for all sorts of physiological reasons. This should have immediately raised a red flag with any investors who had almost any level of medical sophistication. The adequacy of micro-ization of the blood sample still is problematic, unlike with DNA. Thanks to the breakthrough technology of PCR, the tiniest amount of DNA suffices as a sample that can be “copied” in a short amount of time.

    One wonders how she was able avoid scrutiny from curious medical personnel. Walgreen’s gets a copper star for finally smelling a rat, although it took them long enough.

  317. @Charles Erwin Wilson II

    Reagan engineering the collapse.

    Absolutely. Everyone knew “Star Wars” was crap, but the USA could afford to piss away billions of dollars on it. The USSR could not.

    It also helped when Reagan said, supposedly off-mike on his radio show, that that bombing of the USSR will start in 5 minutes.

  318. @Buzz Mohawk

    From my personal observation, looks are more strongly inheritable than smarts. You still have to be careful though. Bruce Willis’ daughters with Demi Moore look like… Bruce Willis.

  319. @Bel Riose

    Lagertha may have strong moral preference, but she is not a scold.

    • Agree: YetAnotherAnon
  320. Corvinus says:
    @sabril

    “Yeah, it’s one of those things we aren’t supposed to notice, but life as a somewhat attractive young woman is life on super-easy mode.”

    It’s not that “super-easy”, dude.

    “One thing I’ve noticed as a man is that when you become somewhat successful and connected, young women start showing up looking for opportunities.”

    OR, these men look for opportunities with young women whom they believe they can bed or wed.

    “They aren’t exactly looking to have sex with you, but from the fact that it’s almost always women who do this, I think there is a sexual component to it.”

    Some women take this approach. Others play it more close to the vest, or they may not even be inclined to make the first move, or they may be focusing on non-relationship matters.

    “I think that a subconscious level, they are hoping to benefit from the male need for female validation.”

    OR, men hoping that their self-confidence will be confirmed. Works both ways.

    “They are hoping to flirt a bit, show a little leg or cleavage, and take advantage of your position.”

    “In fact, I think that a lot of sexual harassment claims are simply the result of these sorts of negotiations failing, e.g. the man wanting more from the woman than she is prepared to offer him; or the woman regretting the bargain she struck.”

    Finally, some sense you are making here.

    • Replies: @Anon
    , @sabril
  321. @BEER/ we're all going to die

    Instead of making her out to be the criminal she IS, jeopardizing patients and trying to get that dumpster fire to an IPO, she’ll be made out to be merely misunderstood, ahead of her time and a victim of some degree of societal misogyny.

    Maybe someday someone makes it work: she’ll get full credit, in spite of the fact that she didn’t. There’s lots of that going around. Without Black women, wwe’d have never made it to the moon after all. Of course, they waited until after Glenn died to bring that lie out. Glenn wouldn’t launch without the Blacks checked the numbers. Sure. Right. Check. 10-4. Sure thing..

  322. @Anonymous

    Dr.Burke I presume? Personally I’d take Fleetwood (he’s got two chicks in his band and he’s nailed at least one, probably both) or Chambers if I had a choice, but the profile fails wildly.

    Guy’s got style though. The real Limeys look like Scouse dock workers in comparison.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  323. Anon[298] • Disclaimer says:
    @Corvinus

    Finally, some sense you are making here.

    When you are (gradually) starting to make intelligent points is not the time to start channeling Yoda.

  324. sabril says:
    @Corvinus

    It’s not that “super-easy”, dude.

    It absolutely is, and if you don’t believe me you can verify it with a little work. Just find a non-identifiable picture of a somewhat attractive young woman; use it to set up an online profile with decent but not stellar credentials; and then start applying for jobs and watch the interview requests roll in.

    OR, these men look for opportunities with young women whom they believe they can bed or wed.

    It’s not one or the other, it can be both. But women and girls do a lot of the initiating.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
    , @L Woods
  325. Big Bill says:
    @International Jew

    It’s not a big problem. It just takes time, government approvals, testing, developing microfluidic controls, sensing systems, figuring out how to store the reagents, how to clean the machine, how to calibrate it, how often to replace the sensors, how to make it repeatable, how to store the reagents.

    All that takes time and bunches of money.

    If you are curious what is possible, look at this 1991 patent to Ben Durley of Abbott Labs:

    http://www.freepatentsonline.com/5075077.pdf

    It does 30+ tests for allergies on a small blood sample. The blood is placed in a small clear plastic disposable test pack that has a bunch of single use reagents. It is then placed in an automated machine carousel for heating/cooling/agitating/sensing/whatever. The machine reads the test pack and prepares a report of your allergies. The machine itself is probably a foot high, two feet deep, and four feet wide.

    [NB: Seven years before this patent I worked with Ben Durley on a similar disposable blood test pack and analyzing machine.]

    Other blood tests are not so simple. You may need bigger blood samples. You may have to add several reagents in a specific order. You may have to heat them, cool them, wait overnight, look for color changes, agitate them, centrifuge them, etc. etc. If you automated those tests, it would take very different machines with all kinds of different material handlers, robots, sensors, reagent storage equipment, etc. Everything cannot be contained in a little disposable cartridge.

    What Elizabeth Holmes was “selling” was a little desktop machine the size of a computer box, that would have everything for dozens (if not hundreds) of these different tests, AND she would do those tests on only two drops of blood, AND she would only charge a few bucks for all the tests.

    Now ask yourself this: how in hell did she ever think she would make enough money to pay off her $1B development costs alone with only 10-20 years of patent life (let alone make a profit)?

    Automated blood test equipment has been around for over 40 years, and no one has even tried to do all of what Elizabeth claimed. If it could be done, the existing companies would have done it — and would have sold each 100 test cartridge for $2500, to recoup their costs, I’ll bet. Which means no one would have ordered the tests and doctors would continue to use the old test machines to test for a few blood conditions on an as-needed basis.

    You know why Elizabeth got “stuck” with a crappy company, couldn’t sell out at her eight billion dollar peak, and had to ride it all the way down down into the dirt?

    It’s because the automated test equipment industry knew she was a joke — a complete and utter joke.

    So why did this happen? SV investors are computer geeks. They know that everything is possible. All it takes is a bit of database programming. No biggie. There are no chemical engineering problems. There are no mechanical engineering problems.

    Lets face it. What are Google, Facebook, Uber, YouTube and AWS but a pile of servers in a warehouse with a bit of custom programming? Not enough programmers? Hire a few more. Problem solved.

    OK. That’s it. I promise. No more on Theranos.

  326. Anonymous[372] • Disclaimer says:

    Reading the book, I am struck by how strongly Sunny Balwani reminds me of my former Indian bosses, both of them. I am becoming convinced that it is some sort of HBD phenomenon – a lot of Indians succeed fabulously in Western societies despite being bird-brain idiots, but the idiots who could bullshit shamelessly. This is how Sunny (who, let me remind you, is/was a very rich man, self-made man, a first generation immigrant to the USA) is depicted in the book:

    With time, some employees grew less afraid of him and devised ways to manage him, as it dawned on them that they were dealing with an erratic man-child of limited intellect and an even more limited attention span. Arnav Khannah, a young mechanical engineer who worked on the miniLab, figured out a surefire way to get Sunny off his back: answer his emails with a reply longer than five hundred words. That usually bought him several weeks of peace because Sunny simply didn’t have the patience to read long emails. Another strategy was to convene a biweekly meeting of his team and invite Sunny to attend. He might come to the first few, but he would eventually lose interest or forget to show up.

    Sunny was often out of his depth during engineering discussions. To hide it, he had a habit of repeating technical terms he heard others using. During a meeting with Arnav’s team, he latched onto the term “end effector,” which signifies the claws at the end of a robotic arm. Except Sunny didn’t hear “end effector,” he heard “endofactor.” For the rest of the meeting, he kept referring to the fictional endofactors. At their next meeting with Sunny two weeks later, Arnav’s team brought a PowerPoint presentation titled “Endofactors Update.” As Arnav flashed it on a screen with a projector, the five members of his team stole furtive glances at one another, nervous that Sunny might become wise to the prank. But he didn’t bat an eye and the meeting proceeded without incident.

    Sunny’s knowledge of chemistry was no better. He thought the chemical symbol for potassium was P … —a mistake most high school chemistry students wouldn’t make.

    Stan thought there was something odd about Sunny. He used a lot of software engineering jargon in their weekly meetings that had no applicability whatsoever to their marketing discussions. And when Stan tried to get him to walk him through how he’d arrived at what seemed like extremely aggressive sales targets, Sunny gave vague and boastful answers. Normally, companies did research to determine the size of the audience they were marketing to and then worked out what percentage of that audience they could realistically hope to convert into customers. But such basic concepts seemed lost on Sunny.

    • Replies: @peterike
  327. inertial says:
    @Charles Erwin Wilson II

    This is way OT, so I’ll be super brief.

    1. Reagan engineered nothing. To the small degree he did contribute to the Soviet collapse, it happened in the last couple of years of his second term. Had he continued with the first term’s policies (and rhetoric,) the USSR would still be with us.

    2. We are not discussing Reagan but the superannuated deep statesmen on Theranos board. The alleged wise men who “won the Cold War.” How do we determine if they were really wise or just lucky? Well, what did they accomplish since then? These are the men who are directly or indirectly responsible for American post-Cold War foreign policy – such smashing successes as the bombing of Yugoslavia, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Arab Spring, the rise of China, and last, but no least, Cold War 2.0 with Russia. Oh, and in addition to that they got conned by a pretty broad with an unlikely story.

  328. McFly says:
    @The Last Real Calvinist

    Yep, she imitated Obama in her mannerisms, in addition to Steve Jobs.

    It’s no mystery why she was able to fool Shultz and his buddies: these elderly men in their 80s and 90s were senile. Functionally incapable of evaluating information and making decision, easily exploited by others for financial gain. Shultz in particular needs to be placed under some kind of guardianship or conservatorship. His grandson Tyler would make an excellent guardian.

  329. marat says:
    @AndrewR

    Perhaps the SV black uniform will be perceived as a little stale these days. After losing both Jobs and Holmes, Wilkes Bashford will surely feel the pinch. Once the wardrobe for Holmes’s character has been purchased, they may consider substituting a rack or two of navy.

    • Replies: @Autochthon
  330. Anon7 says:
    @candid_observer

    Remember, this is a movie, not a factual book. We have no idea what the script will say. Ms. Laurence may have excellent feminist reasons for accepting this role.

    Any bets that the movie version shows that it’s not Holmes’ fault? There are a lot of men to be blamed. There are engineers who failed to carry out her vision, there are investors who faltered and withdrew their support, there are all the men who continuously wore her down with their doubts and their lack of support, there are all the people she had to fire for their adherence to the male science standards of testing and verifiability.

    Theranos the movie may be the story of a remarkable woman with a vision to bring simpler, cheaper health care to the world, only to be held back, betrayed and ultimately abandoned by the men’s club that is the soulless venture capital industry.

    See what I mean?

    • Replies: @TheBoom
  331. Y’all arguing the Deep State ain’t retarded should probably read the IG report .

  332. Anonym says:
    @WowJustWow

    I thought they were just being completely obtuse, but I’m starting see that an ability to make yourself believe whatever is necessary to believe for a particular performance (in a movie or in an interview) is what it means to get into character.

    That’s kind of the point of method acting, right? You become the character, you inhabit the role. There are plenty of occupations or situations that involve dealing with other people where it helps to do this to some extent. But if you want to be the best, you commit to it 100%. Including beliefs, everything.

    Certainly the best method actors such as DDL and Brando are an indication that the technique is as good as any.

  333. TheBoom says:
    @sabril

    Yes. The quests for female and black and Hispanic tech titans sucks money and time from more viable efforts

  334. TheBoom says:
    @Anon7

    The movie will likely show her as visionary heroine undermined by the patriarchy

  335. @marat

    …they may consider substituting a rack or two of navy.

    They are already substituting Lawrence’s formidable rack for Holmes’ much less impressive rack.

    A lot of people seem to sincerely think Holmes is pretty (beautiful, even?). I’m not seeing it. She is not unattractive, but she’s within the realm of average, or acceptable, if you well; not a stunner. De gustabas, etc….

    • Replies: @Anon
    , @Thagomizer
  336. Corvinus says:
    @sabril

    “It absolutely is, and if you don’t believe me you can verify it with a little work. Just find a non-identifiable picture of a somewhat attractive young woman; use it to set up an online profile with decent but not stellar credentials; and then start applying for jobs and watch the interview requests roll in.”

    Interview requests? Surely you jest.

    In this day and age of hypersensitivity to sexual harassment in the workplace?

    In this day and age of young men who read Heartiste and Roosh and have learned to curb their thirst?

    In this day and age of men in positions of authority who may take a gander at a hottie during an interview, but end up selecting a more qualified applicant, under the careful purview of Human Resources?

    “It’s not one or the other, it can be both.”

    Exactly. Either/or, as I made it clear. Now, a lot of girls initiating? Depends on the circumstances involved. Believe it or not, there are still women out there that prefer that the man make the first move.

    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
    , @sabril
  337. @Pat Boyle

    I would have casted Heather Graham.

    • Replies: @njguy73
  338. @sayless

    I met Louise Fletcher at a celebrity autograph show. She was shocked when I told her how much I liked her character.
    We had to read the book in HS, before the movie came out. The teacher was shocked that we hated the Main character, Randell McMurphy. He thought we teen age boys would identify with the anti hero. I explained that we live in a rough neighborhood and have seen the McMurphy types. We hate them. Nurse Ratched ran the clinic to the best of her ability.
    Went to work in the mental health field. McMurphy was misdiagnosed. He should have not been in that ward.

    • Replies: @Jim Don Bob
    , @Pat Boyle
  339. @Forbes

    Generally speaking, the movie business figures it is cheaper in the long run to pay writers than to try to cheat them.

  340. Anonym says:
    @Moral Stone

    It made a good con though. Part of the aura of the tech billionaire such as Gates and Zuckerberg (I think?) is to drop out of college to build a billion dollar business. Of course, for every Gates there are a bajillion college dropouts flipping burgers or whatever it is they do.

  341. @Stonewall Jackson

    I don’t get why Taki eliminated its comments. Eliminating comments is mostly a left-wing thing to do; they do it when they’re finally tired of getting humiliated by their better-informed and more rational readers. But Taki? Why why why?

    I don’t read the Atlantic anymore, because the comments were its only redeeming feature. But I still read Taki’s; it’s good even without comments.

    • Replies: @snorlax
    , @Jim Christian
    , @TWS
  342. @Corvinus

    He provided a simple empirical test. Why don’t you try it?

    • Replies: @sabril
    , @Anon
    , @Corvinus
  343. snorlax says:
    @International Jew

    I’m guessing the Spectator threatened to end his column if he didn’t tone down the edginess, and eliminating comments was the lowest-friction way to do that.

  344. @Big Bill

    I don’t doubt your assessment of her claims (I’ve never reviewed Holmes’ file wrappers myself) or that the examiner in her case made sensible objections. I don’t doubt some stellar physicians from Nigeria are practicing around the world, either, but I’d stand by my assessment medical care in Nigeria are mediocre at best: the patent examination process is about novelty, monobviousness, and utility (and within the statutory purview of patents: a process, machine, article of manufacture, or composition of matter; i.e., not music, literature, or other such non-patentable matter); these requirements are what examiners seek, and they seek them assiduously, to be sure, but they rubber hardly ever meets the road unless and until a patent ia litigated, because then we find out whether it worked, was economically viable to implement, etc. (it sounds like Holmes’ claimed inventions were neither novel, non-obvious, nor useful, though I’d have to review the wrapper to know).

  345. Venture capitalist pulls victim card on behalf of blonde: Tim Draper still reckons poor Elizabeth Holmes was “bullied into submission”. (https://www.cnbc.com/video/2018/05/10/vc-draper-theranos-founder-elizabeth-holmes-was-bullied-into-submission.html … relevant discussion starts about 3 minutes into the clip). I gather he was an early investor in Theranos.

  346. sabril says:
    @Corvinus

    In this day and age of hypersensitivity to sexual harassment in the workplace?

    Absolutely. The male (and female) desire to associate with young women who are at least somewhat attractive is very intense.

    Are you claiming that in the experiment I proposed, the hypothetical woman would not get special interest?

    Exactly. Either/or, as I made it clear.

    Then so what? Why are you trying to change the subject?

    Now, a lot of girls initiating? Depends on the circumstances involved. Believe it or not, there are still women out there that prefer that the man make the first move.

    I would guess it’s pretty unusual for successful men to sift through linkedin profiles and make unsolicited internship offers to young women they find attractive. But even if you are right and they do, what difference does it make?

  347. sabril says:
    @Daniel Chieh

    I think most people intuitively know what the results of such an experiment would be.

    I think that Leftists don’t like to put their ideas to these sorts of tests because deep down, even they know that their ideas are nonsense. Life as a somewhat attractive young woman is life on super-easy mode. But one of the many privileges enjoyed by women is that it’s considered inappropriate to notice the special privileges they enjoy. People will deny it and insist against all evidence that women are oppressed and subjugated by men.

  348. @Daniel H

    Chelsea’s got that power stance thing going in that photo.

    Free ride. Both of them, except E-Hole had many more hundreds of millions in her pocket. How much did she walk away with? She must have collected salary, bonuses. Free ride. Except she hadda tell a lot of lies, but these broads, they lie with impunity. Chelsea, Hillary, E-Hole, all of them. They lie when the truth will do. And the media calls them on nothing. Free ride. And so they walk around, empowered, having accomplished nothing, millions of dollars at their disposal, not a dime honestly earned, they’re living off the good will of men, as if they ever built that. And everyone has to pretend, salute even, that the emperor wears no clothes.

  349. @International Jew

    I don’t get why Taki eliminated its comments. Eliminating comments is mostly a left-wing thing to do; they do it when they’re finally tired of getting humiliated by their better-informed and more rational readers. But Taki? Why why why?

    I miss Boris, heh.. They went to letters because their comments were splashed with a lot of “It’s the Jooooos” stuff. It’s one thing to point out and gripe about AIPAC and ADL and the other 598 Jewish orgs and agencies that corrupt our politics, academia, banking and Wall Street and military and foreign wars. And that’s to say nothing of the media influence encouraging that which would never be tolerated back in the Old Country of Israel. With all that, it’s quite another to suggest a march to the ovens.

    I’m guessing, but Taki didn’t want his name on it anymore. His letters work. Got one of mine quoted this week, heh. Taki pisses me off sometimes, the JFK’s Pimp takes on Ben Bradlee is a case in point. In the stories he tells, Taki instigates more questions than he answers, therefore stirring the pot until it boils, then he walks away until next week. The mark of a great writer is the inspiration of the readers to march. But not in Discus comments, that’s done.

  350. Anon[381] • Disclaimer says:

    Half-Blood Test Princess.

    She got far on symbolism. She had iconic value as feminist success in High Tech.

  351. @Thea

    We watched large white sheets being washed (by pounding with stones) in the highly-polluted* Ganges in Benares, then spread on the stone ‘ghats’ to dry and bleach in the sun. I just hoped they weren’t hotel sheets.

    * wiki – “A 2006 measurement of pollution in the Ganges revealed that river water monitoring over the previous 12 years had demonstrated fecal coliform counts up to 100,000,000 MPN (most probable number) per 100 ml and biological oxygen demand levels averaging over 40 mg/l in the most polluted part of the river in Varanasi (Benares).”

  352. @flyingtiger

    Agree. One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest blew dead dogs as both a book and a movie. And it did much to create the impression that crazy people are just misunderstood, and should be left to live their lives as they want even if it means sleeping on the streets.

  353. @Charles Pewitt

    Right, there is a crisis in the German Merkel-government.

    Best analysis I know of is by Thilo Sarrazin on achgut: “The government’s unlawfulness eats up it’s offspring”:

    https://www.achgut.com/artikel/die_herrschaft_des_unrechts_frisst_ihre_kinder

    • Replies: @Charles Pewitt
  354. Anon[298] • Disclaimer says:
    @Daniel Chieh

    Because he’s Corvinus.

    • Replies: @sabril
  355. @J.Ross

    I Love Janice Atkinson

    Tweet from 2014:

    Janice Atkinson Delivers Message To Corporate Propaganda Whores In The Media(2014):

  356. @inertial

    These are the men who are directly or indirectly responsible for American post-Cold War foreign policy – such smashing successes as the bombing of Yugoslavia, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Arab Spring, the rise of China, and last, but no least, Cold War 2.0 with Russia.

    True, that litany of sins is damning. To the degree that your assertions are accurate, your criticism is warranted. But most of the scamees did no more than write an occasional op-ed. They left the stage no later than new-world-order-Bush-I (except Mattis). Senile and naive to be sure, but the stupidity you identify above is due almost exclusively to other malefactors.

  357. @Dieter Kief

    Thank you for recommending the Sarrazin article, I’ll read it!

    I skimmed through the article before I read it thoroughly, and I hope Sarrazin is just prodding Seehofer with his biting comments. From here in the the USA, Seehofer’s actions seem big, like Trump attacking the GOP ruling class on immigration, trade and foreign policy in 2015 and 2016.

    MERKEL MUSS WEG! I do understand a small bit of German!

    The rule of injustice eats their children

    • Replies: @Dieter Kief
  358. njguy73 says:
    @I, Libertine

    But your equation could require zero as a denominator, which, IIRC, is mathematically impossible. How about: (# of women in the department +1).

    Yes, thank you, I should have noticed that.

    Revised:

    [ (Raw prettiness) x (Decades in STEM department) x Pi ] / (# of other women in department + 1) = STEM prettiness.

    • Replies: @Anon
  359. njguy73 says:
    @flyingtiger

    I would have casted Heather Graham.

    OK, now you’re just being mean.

    • Replies: @flyingtiger
  360. Pat Boyle says:
    @(((They))) Live

    Please examine your psyche carefully. If you actually think that the Hyperloop “can and does work” you should have a keeper. You are too credulous. You are a danger to yourself. You will likely be a victim of the next scam artist to come along.

    The Hypertube is intended to be a 400 mile high vacuum tube that runs from southern to northern California. The demonstration tube he made was a couple hundred feet long and did not have a vacuum, nor a passenger vehicle or anything except a small electric car . Were this thing to be built and in production it would have to have several trains in it at any one time. These trains would supposedly travel at something like 700 mph. Were the tube’s skin to be punctured the whole system would everywhere collapse and all the passengers would die at once. Think about flying in a vacuum at around the speed of sound and the vacuum suddenly is swept away.

    If a bad guy takes a rifle and shoots at cars on the freeway – he might kill a few people before he’s apprehended. I simple sniper or bomber could collapse this 400 hundred mile vacuum tube from anywhere in the empty deserts and scrub land the tube traverses.

    If Musk is such a genius why didn’t he realize any of this?

    • Replies: @BB753
    , @(((They))) Live
  361. Pat Boyle says:
    @flyingtiger

    I too worked in a mental hospital for a little while. I never saw any colorful and zany patients. The one’s I met were creepy, depressed and/or revolting.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  362. BB753 says:
    @Pat Boyle

    He’s a genius at impersonating a genius.

  363. Seneca44 says:
    @snorlax

    Interesting that they put the four or five most attractive women front and center

    • Replies: @Jim Don Bob
  364. Anonymous[144] • Disclaimer says:
    @black lights matter

    Fleetwood’s chicks are in their seventies, as is the little bleach blondie. And Marty’s the only bloke in the band that hasn’t had a go with the boss lady, Probably because he’s not a vegetarian.

  365. Anon[298] • Disclaimer says:
    @Autochthon

    A lot of people seem to sincerely think Holmes is pretty (beautiful, even?). I’m not seeing it.

    In lieu of syonredux, allow me to handle this one.

    Holmes’ much less impressive rack.

    No argument there, though Watson has a stylish hatrack:

    • Replies: @Kylie
  366. Corvinus says:
    @Daniel Chieh

    “He provided a simple empirical test. Why don’t you try it?”

    I have, as my male friends in the medical and business fields. Men today, especially with overhype known as the #MeToo movement, are wary of hiring the more attractive ladies for jobs, especially if some old hag is head of HR.

    Now, to be fair, there are women whom we work with who understand the dynamics of the work space, and since we have built relationship capital with, find it troublesome that even an off the cuff comment can get someone fired. In other words, the females who are already employed understand that “guys will be guys” and are fine with it. Why? Because the guys generally do not go overboard with it.

    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
  367. peterike says:
    @Anonymous

    I am becoming convinced that it is some sort of HBD phenomenon – a lot of Indians succeed fabulously in Western societies despite being bird-brain idiots, but the idiots who could bullshit shamelessly.

    Indeed it’s a pretty remarkable phenomenon. From my observations, at close range, it seems a combination of complete shamelessness, zero moral integrity (any lie will do), and a willingness to shiv anybody that gets in their way. Not literally, of course, but in business terms, badmouthing someone, taking credit for someone else’s work, etc. It’s easy to roll the high-trust white people, who are simply aghast when the Indian guy pulls some blatant bit of pettifoggery right in your face. White people don’t know how to respond to this. They just get embarrassed by it all. (This also explains a good deal of Jewish clout.)

    Indians also quickly establish ethnic networks which gives them additional clout in the organization. Body counts matter, and really most of the Indians can’t do this kind of thing. But they back each other up against whitey (though they will happily shiv one another when required).

    And on top of this is a strong verbal facility, whether or not its backed with any actual knowledge. Like Obama, these guys are glib. It’s hard to imagine that you can be pretty stupid yet quite glib (e.g. Muhammad Ali), but it’s a real thing.

    Now mind you, the Chinese are equal to the Indians in many of these areas and maybe even more ruthless, but they are held back by their language barrier. At least the off-the-boats. The next generation, well… we already see them becoming the new wave of furious SJWs.

    • Replies: @Clyde
    , @Kibernetika
  368. @Corvinus

    …or you could, instead of speculating randomly, just open two linkedin accounts, use two photos and alter the name slightly. Then check how many contacts you get on the male account versus the female account, with the exact same credentials.

    Its been done before, with pretty badthink results.

    • Replies: @sabril
    , @Corvinus
  369. Anon[298] • Disclaimer says:
    @njguy73

    # of other women in department + 1

    is equivalent to

    # of women in department

  370. Anon[300] • Disclaimer says:

    “If Holmes is a vampish adventuress who led around her aging male cheering squad by the power of her blonde sexiness, then why affect such a manly voice and demeanor?”

    It’s quite common for Ruling Class feminist media types to demand women look and act like men. Take a gander at Marvel Comics – Squirrel Girl, Wolverine, Hulk, etc. Those characters have mostly been manized in recent years: short hair, nondescript faces, no breasts, overweight, box figures. Anything billed as “strong and empowering” is portrayed as women looking and acting like men. So, it’s not surprising Holmes would play that up in California where weirdos control the media.

    Additionally, it’s not just that Holmes was an attractive adventuress. There was obviously that, but none of the politically correct old guys on that board wanted to be the “sexist” who questioned the media’s feminist darling. Could you imagine the 2 minutes of hate that a guy like Kissinger would have gotten for publicly questioning Holmes? John McEnroe, the tennis star, got into trouble for merely pointing out that Venus Williams (or Serena, whatever) wasn’t the best tennis star in history because hundreds of men who currently play the game could beat her. That was and is a fact, but the media attacked him anyway.

    This, I think, is a prelude to America’s future: a corrupt, incompetent society characterized by repeated economic crashes, corruption, and corporate failures because no one is allowed to criticize some protected non-white male group. Meanwhile, Asia kicks American/European butt all over the place.

  371. Kylie says:
    @Anon

    I love the Sidney Paget illustrations.

  372. sabril says:
    @Daniel Chieh

    I’m game to do an actual experiment. In fact, I’m willing to do it without pictures. Just create a two profiles one which suggests a 25 year old female and one which suggests a 25 year old male and include activities which suggest that both are physically fit.

    In fact. you could make both profiles exactly the same except one is Nicole and one is Nicholas; both graduated from the State University in 2015; and both are avid cyclists. We’ll make both of them STEM grads since that is where there is supposedly intense discrimination against women. Or if you like we can pick a field like law which is roughly balanced between the sexes.

    I’m pretty confident that Nicole will get far better results from a job search than Nicholas. Because I believe young women live life on super-easy mode but I’m willing to put my belief to the test.

    Corvinus, are you game? It seems you believe employers will be much more interested in meeting Nicholas since he is less likely to bring a sexual harassment complaint. Are you willing to put your beliefs to the test?

    • Agree: Daniel Chieh
    • Replies: @Corvinus
  373. sabril says:
    @Mike Zwick

    It’s not that they are shut out, it’s that they are far more risk averse than men. Also less talented technically but the main problem (in my opinion) is that they are unwilling to take the kind of risks involved in starting a startup.

    Which makes sense. It’s a bad idea for most people to spend their 20s working night and day starting a company which is 95% likely to be a complete failure. But it’s an especially bad idea for women due to their limited fertility window. Nature made women risk averse for a good reason.

  374. @Charles Pewitt

    Ok.

    You translated what’s written down, I tried to pin down what was meant by Sarrazin – and make that clear to a (supposedly) rather uninformed public (which seemingly does ot include you).

    (The “rule” is maybe a tad abstract, and folks who don’t know what Sarrazin is talking about, might misinterpret the headline of his article as being about – juridic superficialities of some sort. Whereas this rule of injustice refers to a very good essay indeed of Ulrich Vosgerau from December 2015 (!) in the political magazine “Cicero” (still online! – very good!).

    Vosgerau makes the claim, that the Merkel decision, to just open the German borders, was indeed unlawful. Ulrich Vosgerau has included this essay in a book now – “Die Herrschaft des Unrechts”, which is available at books on demand for ca. 10 euros. The book is very informative as well (I’ve read book & essay).

    Vosgerau’s essay was quoted by Seehofer against Merkel soon after it’s publication, and then he forgot about the whole affair and simply cooperated with Merkel – until this week. All of a suden, the confrontative approach in the CSU came back to life, and some CDU MPs even supported Seehofer’s attack on Merkel (behind closed doors only, but anyhow).

    At the moment, everthing is quiet on this western front, because Merkel just declared, that all she’d need now would be another two weeks, then there’d be a European solution to the migration-crisis.

    Last week, Seehofer made clear, that he supports Viktor Orban and Matteo Salvini, the new minister of the interior in Italy, both strictly for closed borders.

    Seehofer is known for the most unbelievable U-turns in politics, so – there is a lot of tension within the CDU/CSU, but except for that, not much has happened.

    Gottfried Curio from the AfD held a pretty clear and informative speech about migration/ immigration in the Bundestag today. It’s online at Bundestag.de. CDU/ CSU looked rather uncomfortable, while Curio was speaking, and later a CDU MP attacked Curio personally in such an unfair and dumb, really – – way, that it almost hurt me to watch this man, Alexander Throm, dismantle his reputation in public. – This can’t go on for very long since the eclectrate is not that stupid (at least, that’s what I hope for…).

  375. AndrewR says:
    @Charles Erwin Wilson II

    It’s called slang. Even the severely autistic should be able to grasp the concept of it.

  376. @Lot

    Or we get to know some of the secrets because of infighting, but it doesn’t mean that they cannot keep secrets at all, only that there are secrets which were exposed due to infighting.

  377. @Seneca44

    Interesting that they put the four or five most attractive women front and center

    Which ones were they? I didn’t see any.

  378. @Anonym

    The fact she had retained so much ownership indicates she wasn’t a dupe of Balwani.

    But the ownership is totally worthless. The more powerful Holmes looks, the higher share of the blame she’s going to take. Balwani got to screw her, he got the Lamborghini, he could live like a rich and important guy, and then he gets to blame someone else. He perfectly understood that it’s better for him to stay in the background.

  379. @Pat Boyle

    Sorry Pat but AFAIK the Hyperloop is not a vacuum tube, its a partial vacuum, or at least Musk’s idea was, and again Musk is NOT actually involved with any of the companies working on the project, its just an idea he had, he later said maybe he should have kept quiet about the whole thing

    Anyway like I said I doubt we will ever see a 400 mile long Hyperloop because the cost per mile will be too high, so stop thinking or worrying about it

    The real money maker for Musk will be his satellite comms system, if he can get that right he could be richer than Bezos

    Of course the most important question is who will play Musk in the Hollywood biopic, since Elon is African American Will Smith might be a good bet

  380. WaPo, 06/15/18 – Elizabeth Holmes, founder of blood-testing company Theranos, indicted on wire fraud, federal authorities announce

    Elizabeth Holmes, founder of the blood-testing start-up Theranos, and her former chief operating officer, Ramesh “Sunny” Balwani, were indicted by a federal grand jury on nine counts of wire fraud and two counts of conspiracy to commit wire fraud, the Department of Justice announced Friday.

    The indictment alleges that the pair used marketing, press interviews and financial statements to defraud potential investors on behalf of their company. The start-up promised to disrupt medicine by selling, quick, cheap blood tests directly to consumers.

    Holmes stepped down as chief executive of Theranos on Friday.

    “This conspiracy misled doctors and patients about the reliability of medical tests that endangered health and lives,” Special Agent in Charge John F. Bennett said in a statement.

    Holmes had already settled federal fraud charges by the Securities and Exchange Commission, agreeing to a $500,000 penalty and a 10-year ban on working as an officer or director of a public company. Balwani faces those charges in court.

  381. Clyde says:
    @Anon

    Speaking of Harvey, one of his accusers, Rose McGowan was just arrested for cocaine possession.

    My cruel take is that she was a cute confused druggie in her Harvey photos circa 15 years ago. Now she is a tortured shrieking, druggie with a crew cut. In pain, with a lot of it her own making.

    Time waits for no one — Jagger/Richards

  382. Clyde says:
    @peterike

    At least the off-the-boats.

    You mean fresh off the boat. FOB. Chinese American comedians will use this phrase. They can take a (limited) ribbing until they buy up British Columbia and everything valuable in California.

  383. TWS says:
    @Anonymous

    They were right. Everything my grandmother said would happen after Roe v Wade did happen. Everything from baby butcher shops selling parts to euthanasia and degeneracy.

  384. TWS says:
    @unpc downunder

    If they didn’t have the force of law and institutions they couldn’t maintain their gains. Traditionalists are far more likely to go along if officialdom gives its seal of approval.

  385. TWS says:
    @Autochthon

    Both of my sons who are old enough were marines. They were both good looking kids and had plenty of girlfriends in high school and college. But when they got in the marines they had all the girls they could handle and then some. Girls love the uniform.

  386. TWS says:
    @International Jew

    I knew they were going to filter for the left when they changed to the ultra-mega-super gay layout. I thought they would ban certain commenters first but the community would have thrown a fit in the comment section because they’d ban all the anti-Jew folks would get ban hammered first.

  387. Finally, a photo (2015 apparently) of Ramesh “Sunny” Balwani, from WSJ:

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-files-criminal-charges-against-theranoss-elizabeth-holmes-ramesh-balwani-1529096005

    Byline is John Carreyrou so I believe this one…

  388. L Woods says:
    @sabril

    The next useful thing Corvinus has to say will be the first.

  389. @njguy73

    LOL!
    How about Kaley Cocuco, who plays Peny No Last name on Big Bang theory. She would play Holmes as a Marlene Dietrich character who seduces men to give her money. Then she finds out her idea does not work….

  390. @Autochthon

    Some men go crazy for pale blue eyed blondes. Especially if they grew up in areas where those traits are more rare.

  391. sabril says:
    @Anon

    I think that deep down, Leftists are just as aware as the rest of us that their beliefs are complete nonsense. In that respect, they are no different from self-proclaimed psychics who refuse to put their claimed abilities to a simple, verifiable test.

  392. Corvinus says:
    @Daniel Chieh

    “…or you could, instead of speculating randomly, just open two linkedin accounts, use two photos and alter the name slightly. Then check how many contacts you get on the male account versus the female account, with the exact same credentials. Its been done before, with pretty badthink results.

    I would be interested in those sociological studies that were conducted in the past on this topic. So I assume that since you make the claim “it has been done before”, that you are privy to a few which have been published, right? Provide any relevant links.

  393. Corvinus says:
    @sabril

    “I’m game to do an actual experiment.”

    Hey, knock yourself out if you want to create two fake profiles on a job search board like linkedin. I’m sure that when you contact each and every prospective employer for a debriefing as to the reason why they were interested in either candidate, they will appreciate you for conducting a sociological experiment. This sort of field testing requires finding out why the selection was made. Of course, you will need to have a neutral third party involved to actually create the profiles as to reduce potential experimenter bias, to minimize extraneous variables, and to account for any potential confounding variables. See, these types of experiments need to be rigorous, as the data could otherwise be compromised. Of course, replication is essential. That is, a similar follow-up study would be desirable in order to ensure that the results are consistent.

    “I’m pretty confident that Nicole will get far better results from a job search than Nicholas.”

    Exactly why a neutral third party must be involved to ensure that the results are not skewed one way or the other.

    “Because I believe young women live life on super-easy mode but I’m willing to put my belief to the test.”

    Some young women, but not all. Hey, here is another type of experiment you can also conduct…

  394. sabril says:
    @Corvinus

    This sort of field testing requires finding out why the selection was made.

    You find out the why by making everything the same except for one factor and then seeing if there is a significant difference. You don’t ask people about their motivations because people are dishonest about their motivations both to themselves and others.

    Anyway, I’m game to do the experiment, but lets agree in advance: I predict the young female candidate will get significantly more job interest than the young male due to discrimination. You predict that the male candidate will get significantly more job interest due to fear of metoo. Whoever’s prediction was wrong has to admit it publicly on this discussion board.

    Agreed?

    (And if you are worried that my beliefs will somehow bias the results, I will agree to take screen shots of both profiles and word all job inquiries exactly the same so you can check carefully to make sure there is no experimenter bias.)

    • Replies: @Corvinus
  395. @Corvinus

    You clearly have no knowledge of how such experiments work.

    Sabril, please do run this if you can. TBH, though, it’s a forgone conclusion since you will automatically get more hits as “diversity” hires are flagged for attention by machine searches by headhunters. Still would be interesting, though.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
  396. Corvinus says:
    @Daniel Chieh

    Actually, I do. It’s an experiment in a field referred to as social psychology. I outlined a specific course of action that must be taken, one that experts in the area adhere to.

    Now, refer to my comment at 402. Again, I assume that since you make the claim “it has been done before”, that you are privy to a few which have been published, right? Provide any relevant links.

  397. @Corvinus

    Really? More special pleading Corvinus? Can’t you do better?

  398. Anon[298] • Disclaimer says:
    @Autochthon

    Jennifer Lawrence is stupid

    nothing about her appearance suggests she is stupid

    Maybe you haven’t looked hard enough?

  399. @peterike

    One of the most refreshing conversations I’ve had recently was with a Nigerian academic. He fully understood and freely spoke about some of these things. As an official “other,” he was able to openly discuss this stuff.

    In US and Western universities, it’s amazing how many institutes and labs become ethnic/national enclaves. As an obfuscated example, let’s consider a lab that’s ostensibly out to cure some dread disease(s). If the head/PI is a Chinese national, it’s not uncommon to have that PI bring in, and employ EXCLUSIVELY Chinese nationals. Hey, they’re guest scientists ;)

    Same goes for Russian and Indian-led labs/institutes, of course. And Israelis, of course (they’re pretty obvious). For Cold War kids like myself, this is difficult to believe, but this is how lax we’ve become.

  400. Lagertha says:
    @Bel Riose

    Do me, baby, do me. Don’t provoke commentators .… if you can : do the work, or, like work, without your parents paying for car insurance, rent, fun money ;) . Let this be a lesson for your dating moves: You are inexperienced…you exposed that, freely…but sooner or later someone suspects you are a leech, a Digger, a parasite. Grow up and get the F out of my sand box.

  401. Lagertha says:
    @Bel Riose

    yah. get it. But, right now we are in a fight for the future of the integrity of the USA. The forces against the USA are very, very strong. So, let’s not cut down people who support the Trump agenda .

  402. sabril says:
    @Corvinus

    Ok, just so we are clear, your prediction is that the young man’s profile will get significantly more job interest that the young woman’s profile due to fear of metoo accusations, right?

    Right? A simple yes or no question, and I really would like an answer.

    I’m sure that when you contact each and every prospective employer for a debriefing as to the reason why they were interested in either candidate, they will appreciate you for conducting a sociological experiment.

    Don’t be silly, people lie about their reasons for doing things. No prospective employer is going to admit that they prefer to hire young women. Anyway, part of the point of the experiment is that you don’t need to ask people why they do things. You just change one factor and leave everything else the same, and if there is a significant difference, the reasonable conclusion is that factor is what’s responsible.

    Do you agree that if you have two job profiles and the only difference between the profiles is sex (one is Nicholas and one is Nicole), and one of the profiles gets significantly better job interest than the other, the reasonable inference is that there is sex discrimination at work? A simple yes or no question, and I really would like an answer.

    By the way, I’m doing another (informal) experiment right now. I predict that you will shuck and jive and dance and demand expensive and time-consuming controls — anything to avoid actually doing the experiment. Just like television psychics resist having their “powers” put to a test. Because just like a television psychic, you know deep down that you are wrong but rather than admit it, you will invent excuses to avoid a test of your ridiculous belief.

    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
    , @sabril
  403. Anonymous[421] • Disclaimer says:
    @WowJustWow

    Movie/TV actors refusing to watch their recorded performances is not unheard of. It’s from the belief that watching your past performances may affect your future performances, possibly in a negative way.

    • Replies: @Jim Don Bob
  404. Anonymous[421] • Disclaimer says:
    @Pat Boyle

    I think the pharmacological revolution of recent decades has changed the character of the inmates of these places.

    • Replies: @Pat Boyle
  405. @Anonymous

    Michael Caine was once asked about some dreadful movie he’d been in. He said he’d heard it was terrible and he’d never seen it. Then he said the house it paid for is very nice.

  406. Pat Boyle says:
    @Anonymous

    You could be right of course but if there has been big change I haven’t read of it.

  407. Clyde says:
    @Jim Don Bob

    But Rosie’s been going down the Sinead O’Connor road for a while now, so I believe it. It’s too bad – she used to be a babe.

    Indeed!

  408. @sabril

    Something interesting to try: attempt one profile with an unattractive woman and another one with an attractive one. If Corvy is correct, then the unattractive woman should be able to get more “hits” than the one who is attractive. Based on everything we know of the halo effect, though, the reverse will be true.

    • Replies: @sabril
    , @Corvinus
  409. sabril says:
    @Daniel Chieh

    Agreed, but I think it’s not just the halo effect. It’s also the “here’s a girl that I’d like to spend time with” effect.

    Here’s another variation on the experiment: Create phony linkedin profiles with no pictures, but also choose unusual names for the candidates and create social media profiles with the same names but also have pictures. I predict you will still see a significant difference in job interest.

    i.e. I predict employers are so lookist that they will Google search to find candidates’ pictures so that they can discriminate in favor of attractive young women.

    Here’s another variation: Send out unsolicited requests for internships which appear to be from 20-year-old college students. When it comes to smaller businesses where the boss can decide on his own whim to set up an internship for someone, I’m pretty confident that a somewhat attractive young woman will have great success.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
    , @Daniel Chieh
  410. Corvinus says:
    @Daniel Chieh

    I see that you are running away from the request. Just in case you missed it, here it is again. Refer to my comment at 402. Again, I assume that since you make the claim “it has been done before”, that you are privy to a few which have been published, right? Provide any relevant links.

    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
  411. @Corvinus

    Schneider, F.W., Gruman, J. A., & Coutts, L. M(2012) – specific to job performance, error in judgment in workers

    Rasmussen(2008) – error in judgment r/e students

    The halo effect is nothing new. You haven’t replied to his question, and as usual, just concern trolling pointlessly. His experiment is elegant and empirical, and if you wanted to dispute the methodology, do it afterward like how it is usually done.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
  412. Corvinus says:
    @sabril

    “You find out the why by making everything the same except for one factor and then seeing if there is a significant difference.”

    Correlation does not equal causation. You have to find out the reasons why. You can speculate that the reason why a prospective employer chose a man over a woman, or vice versa, is due to discrimination. But you definitively do not know and cannot draw only a specific conclusion without taking into account other reasonable explanations.

    “You don’t ask people about their motivations because people are dishonest about their motivations both to themselves and others.”

    Again, in these types of experiments, debriefing is essential. We must ascertain the reasons why they were selected. An employer clicking on a profile tells us their initial interest. We can only speculate why and why not they were drawn in. Moreover, one must also take into account who is doing the initial screening. Is it a man or a woman? Is it someone from HR, or is it the actual boss? What is their level of interest? Important extraneous factors one must bear in mind when conducting such an experiment to ensure its validity and reliability.

    Furthermore, if you are saying that people are “dishonest about their motivations both to themselves and to others”, then is it not reasonable to assume you also fall into this category when insisting that the results from your experiment is the direct result of discrimination?

    “Anyway, I’m game to do the experiment, but lets agree in advance: I predict the young female candidate will get significantly more job interest than the young male due to discrimination.”

    How do you know for certain it is discrimination? Is it merely because the employer chose one applicant over another that it has to be discrimination from your vantage point? Are there not other reasonable explanations to why one candidate was chosen? Of course, you do realize that one must also offer an operational definition for discrimination for such experiments. Do you need a primer on how to conduct basic psychological research?

    “You predict that the male candidate will get significantly more job interest due to fear of metoo.”

    It is possible that an employer might favor one applicant for another applicant because of gender discrimination, or out of fear for potential sexual harassment in the workplace, or out of intrigue that one applicant appears to generate compared to other applicants, or due Again, there are a myriad of reasons here.

    “(And if you are worried that my beliefs will somehow bias the results, I will agree to take screen shots of both profiles and word all job inquiries exactly the same so you can check carefully to make sure there is no experimenter bias.)”

    I’m sure you would do your absolute best to ensure that the profile were similar in nature. I’m not so sure about how you would interpret the results.

    “Don’t be silly, people lie about their reasons for doing things”

    Such as yourself? Would you also fall into this category?

    “No prospective employer is going to admit that they prefer to hire young women.”

    You do realize that you are committing the cardinal sin of experimenter bias here, right? Experimenters must go into their research by minimizing their own prejudices. Furthermore, in this type of experiment, one can provide an anonymous survey to ascertain the reasons why, while taking into account the self-serving bias.

    And it would appear that prospective employers do admit certain things like not hiring younger women.

    https://www.theguardian.com/money/2014/aug/12/managers-avoid-hiring-younger-women-maternity-leave

    https://www.care2.com/causes/employers-admit-they-wont-hire-young-women-heres-why.html

    “Anyway, part of the point of the experiment is that you don’t need to ask people why they do things.”

    Actually, you do, if one is going to make a definitive statement or an overarching conclusion.

    “Do you agree that if you have two job profiles and the only difference between the profiles is sex (one is Nicholas and one is Nicole), and one of the profiles gets significantly better job interest than the other, the reasonable inference is that there is sex discrimination at work? A simple yes or no question, and I really would like an answer.”

    I would say that it could be one of several explanations. But you cannot say definitively unless you do some additional digging.

    “By the way, I’m doing another (informal) experiment right now. I predict that you will shuck and jive and dance and demand expensive and time-consuming controls — anything to avoid actually doing the experiment. Just like television psychics resist having their “powers” put to a test. Because just like a television psychic, you know deep down that you are wrong but rather than admit it, you will invent excuses to avoid a test of your ridiculous belief.”

    Feel free to conduct the experiment. But the conclusion you draw is one of many other reasonable inferences.

    • Replies: @sabril
  413. Corvinus says:
    @Daniel Chieh

    Nice try, Daniel. You just plucked from some book some random studies without directly linking it to the subject at hand–employer discrimination against workers. Let’s focus on the topic at hand rather than your “shucking and jiving”, shall we?

    “…or you could, instead of speculating randomly, just open two linkedin accounts, use two photos and alter the name slightly. Then check how many contacts you get on the male account versus the female account, with the exact same credentials. Its been done before, with pretty badthink results.”

    YOU are indicating here that these experiments, the one that sabril has been touting, have been done before. As in there has been past studies on this phenomenon. So I surmise that you are privy to these similar experiments, since you had said “its been done before, with pretty badthink results”.

    Again, do you have research studies on this EXACT subject or not?

    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
  414. @Corvinus

    See how far your concern trolling takes you.

    Not very.

    On the other hand, sabril’s methodology will provide something interesting. Buh bye.

    • Replies: @sabril
    , @Corvinus
  415. sabril says:
    @Corvinus

    Correlation does not equal causation. You have to find out the reasons why. You can speculate that the reason why a prospective employer chose a man over a woman, or vice versa, is due to discrimination. But you definitively do not know and cannot draw only a specific conclusion without taking into account other reasonable explanations.

    What other possible reasonable explanations could there be?

    Again, in these types of experiments, debriefing is essential

    I’m extremely skeptical of this claim. Do you have a cite to support it?

    Are there not other reasonable explanations to why one candidate was chosen?

    No, because both profiles will be exactly the same except for the sex of the candidate. To reiterate my question: What other possible reasonable explanations could there be?

    I’m sure you would do your absolute best to ensure that the profile were similar in nature. I’m not so sure about how you would interpret the results.

    I’ll be happy to share the raw results and you can argue for whatever interpretation you like.

    Such as yourself? Would you also fall into this category?

    Sometimes, yeah. Why do you ask? What difference does it make? If I’m right, I’m right. And in this case, I’m right. My reasons for wanting to do the experiment are irrelevant.

    You do realize that you are committing the cardinal sin of experimenter bias here, right?

    If exercising common sense is a cardinal sin, then put me in the stocks. Besides, what difference does it make if I am biased? I will show screen shots of the profiles and do everything in writing. How exactly is my expectation about the outcome going to affect things?

    Actually, you do, if one is going to make a definitive statement or an overarching conclusion.

    Cite please.

    I would say that it could be one of several explanations.

    Such as?

    Feel free to conduct the experiment. But the conclusion you draw is one of many other reasonable inferences.

    Oh really? Is there anything you believe about the world which is the result of experimentation? Do you believe that smoking cigarettes increases one’s risk of lung cancer?

    • Replies: @Corvinus
  416. sabril says:
    @Daniel Chieh

    I would say it’s not concern trolling so much as assuming the role of the 80s tobacco executive. No experiment, whether formal or informal, no matter how tightly controlled will ever demonstrate anything to his satisfaction.

    The fact is that any reasonable person would accept an experiment such as I described. But Corvinus will never accept it just like those tobacco executives of the 80s would never accept that smoking cigarettes increases the risk of lung cancer.

    After all, how do you know that there isn’t some independent factor which is responsible for the results? Maybe it’s stereotype threat, i.e. people believe that cigarette smoking is harmful and perhaps it’s that belief which is increasing their likelihood of getting cancer. At a certain point, reasonable people draw reasonable conclusions. While unreasonable people — such as Corvinus — insist on proof to a level of mathematical certainty.

    The fact is that there is massive societal discrimination in favor of young women, you don’t even have to do an experiment to know it. It’s obvious to anyone who keeps their eyes open and thinks criticially.

  417. Corvinus says:
    @Daniel Chieh

    Not surprised that you make a claim and then do not have the sources to back it up.

    • Replies: @Anon
  418. Anon[298] • Disclaimer says:
    @Corvinus

    Says the guy who’s talking out of his rear end. At least you’ve stopped with the random capitalizations; that’s a good sign.

  419. Corvinus says:
    @sabril

    Now you are just having your imagination running wild here.

  420. @sabril

    Let us know what you find out, you might want to mention this in Dr. Thompson’s columns as I am sure he can help you iron out any methodological issues.

    • Replies: @Anon
  421. Anon[298] • Disclaimer says:
    @Daniel Chieh

    So we have three setups:

    1) Double linkedin profiles, identical but for name and picture

    2) ditto, but difference is pic vs. no pic

    3) Applications sent out for internships, varying as 1)– have to choose different employers, or they’ll get suspicious.

    3) is the hardest, because one has to put some effort into sampling employers. 1) can be done fairly easily, and is not hard to repeat. I concur Dr.Thompson might be helpful.

  422. sabril says:
    @sabril

    Correlation does not equal causation. You have to find out the reasons why. You can speculate that the reason why a prospective employer chose a man over a woman, or vice versa, is due to discrimination. But you definitively do not know and cannot draw only a specific conclusion without taking into account other reasonable explanations.

    What other possible reasonable explanations could there be?

    Again, in these types of experiments, debriefing is essential

    I’m extremely skeptical of this claim. Do you have a cite to support it?

    Are there not other reasonable explanations to why one candidate was chosen?

    No, because both profiles will be exactly the same except for the sex of the candidate. To reiterate my question: What other possible reasonable explanations could there be?

    I’m sure you would do your absolute best to ensure that the profile were similar in nature. I’m not so sure about how you would interpret the results.

    I’ll be happy to share the raw results and you can argue for whatever interpretation you like.

    Such as yourself? Would you also fall into this category?

    Sometimes, yeah. Why do you ask? What difference does it make? If I’m right, I’m right. And in this case, I’m right. My reasons for wanting to do the experiment are irrelevant.

    You do realize that you are committing the cardinal sin of experimenter bias here, right?

    If exercising common sense is a cardinal sin, then put me in the stocks. Besides, what difference does it make if I am biased? I will show screen shots of the profiles and do everything in writing. How exactly is my expectation about the outcome going to affect things?

    Actually, you do, if one is going to make a definitive statement or an overarching conclusion.

    Cite please.

    I would say that it could be one of several explanations.

    Such as? I’m waiting.

    Feel free to conduct the experiment. But the conclusion you draw is one of many other reasonable inferences.

    Oh really? Is there anything you believe about the world which is the result of experimentation? Do you believe that smoking cigarettes increases one’s risk of lung cancer?

  423. MBlanc46 says:
    @Jim Christian

    Has made his large library of military books available for a modest annual fee. I’m so sorry that he is mentally ill.

  424. Corvinus says:
    @sabril

    “What other possible reasonable explanations could there be?”

    An employer might favor one applicant over another applicant due to their references, or their past work experience, or the employer’s “gut level” feeling, or the employer’s specific number one criteria was met, even if the profiles are essentially similar in nature. And is each profile listed side by side?
    Moreover, one must also take into account who is doing the initial screening. Is it a man or a woman? Is it someone from HR, or is it the actual boss? What is their level of interest squarely based on? Are they merely drawn in by the person’s apparent looks, seen or unseen? You are assuming that attractiveness is THE underlying factor here. It may or may not be. Again, correlation does not equal causation.

    https://www.thebalancecareers.com/top-ideas-for-recruiting-great-candidates-1916798

    “I’m extremely skeptical of this claim. Do you have a cite to support it?”

    For starters…

    https://www.swarthmore.edu/institutional-review-board/deception-incomplete-disclosure-and-debriefing

    https://www.umass.edu/research/guidance/debriefing-process-guidance

    “I’ll be happy to share the raw results and you can argue for whatever interpretation you like.”

    Except you already have made up your mind regarding the conclusion of your study–the young female candidate will get significantly more job interest than the young male due to discrimination. How do you know the decision for an employer who clicks on one candidate compared to another candidate meets the operational definition of “discrimination” for the experiment?

    “Besides, what difference does it make if I am biased?”

    Because that’s not how social psychology experimenters operate. An objective researcher is decidedly open potentially different results than what they anticipate.

    “If I’m right, I’m right. And in this case, I’m right. My reasons for wanting to do the experiment are irrelevant.”

    No, the reasons are completely relevant here, as you just stated that people are “dishonest about their motivations both to themselves and to others”. Your own reasons for doing something distinctly matter. What happens if the results do not match up with your expectations? Would that even change anything on your part?

    “Do you believe that smoking cigarettes increases one’s risk of lung cancer?”

    In this situation, it was fairly clear cut given how the executives kept their scientific findings from the general public and engaged in purposeful deception. With your scenario, there are other factors or reasons involved.

    “No experiment, whether formal or informal, no matter how tightly controlled will ever demonstrate anything to his satisfaction.”

    ‘m not the one insisting that there is but one, and only one, explanation to a situation, that being a young woman being considered for employment just because of her looks at the expense of a young man when both profile are exactly alike. You are a slave to your own confirmation bias.

    “While unreasonable people — such as Corvinus — insist on proof to a level of mathematical certainty.”

    The train is just fine, Sabril, the train is just fine.

    “The fact is that there is massive societal discrimination in favor of young women, you don’t even have to do an experiment to know it. It’s obvious to anyone who keeps their eyes open and thinks criticially.”

    You do realize that you are acting just like those tobacco executives, right? Apparently the irony and hypocrisy escapes you.

  425. sabril says:

    An employer might favor one applicant over another applicant due to their references, or their past work experience, or the employer’s “gut level” feeling,

    Re-read. I proposed making the profiles identical.

    Moreover, one must also take into account who is doing the initial screening.

    Why? If businesses discriminate against men because their screeners are male; or female; or old; or young; or whatever, it doesn’t change the fact that they discriminate.

    For starters…

    Umm, please quote the part where it states that in any experiment, whether formal or informal, in order to test for discrimination or bias, one must question all of the participants as to their motivations.

    Failing that, please admit that it says no such thing. In other words, either put up or shut up. Although somehow I expect you will do neither.

    Except you already have made up your mind regarding the conclusion of your study–the young female candidate will get significantly more job interest than the young male due to discrimination.

    I’m confident in the results, but if the results contradict my expectation, you will be able to point it out.

    Because that’s not how social psychology experimenters operate

    This is not a formal experiment, and besides even formal experimenters have expectations about their results. Please provide cite for your claim that in any experiment, whether formal or informal, it is impossible to have reliable results if the experimenter is biased, assuming that the underlying data is subject to scrutiny.

    What happens if the results do not match up with your expectations? Would that even change anything on your part?

    Sure of course. Anyway, you didn’t answer my question. Let’s assume that I am doing the experiement for reason X as opposed to reason Y. Why does that matter? Asserting that it matters is not an answer.

    In this situation, it was fairly clear cut given how the executives kept their scientific findings from the general public and engaged in purposeful deception.

    Umm, do you believe that smoking cigarettes increases one’s risk of cancer? It’s a very simple yes or no question. And if the answer is “yes,” why do you believe it given that there are other possible explanations for the correlation between smoking and cancer?

    ” not the one insisting that there is but one, and only one, explanation to a situation”

    I have no idea what your point is here.

    Let me ask you this: Is it ever possible to demonstrate job discrimination by using civil rights testers? A simple yes or no question.

    You do realize that you are acting just like those tobacco executives, right?

    In what way? I’m not the one who is demanding proof to a mathematical certainty that I am wrong. If we do the experiment and it turns out that the male profile gets better results I will acknowledge it.

    Anyway, I would like an answer to my question:

    Is there anything which you believe about the world which is the result of experimentation? Anything at all? If so, what?

    • Replies: @Corvinus
  426. Corvinus says:
    @sabril

    “Re-read. I proposed making the profiles identical.”

    Along with their references and contact information? Regardless, the explanations I offered are reasonable as to why an employer may select one candidate over another candidate.

    “Why? If businesses discriminate against men because their screeners are male; or female; or old; or young; or whatever, it doesn’t change the fact that they discriminate.”

    Of course it plays a role.

    “This is not a formal experiment, and besides even formal experimenters have expectations about their results.”

    Expectations that must be tempered whether it be formal or informal/

    https://www.psychologicalscience.org/publications/observer/obsonline/experimenters-expectations-may-shape-priming-results.html

    http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2012/01/18/primed-by-expectations-why-a-classic-psychology-experiment-isnt-what-it-seemed/#.WyztpBJKh0s

    “Please provide cite for your claim that in any experiment, whether formal or informal, it is impossible to have reliable results if the experimenter is biased, assuming that the underlying data is subject to scrutiny.”

    I never made that claim directly or indirectly. Regardless, experiments whether formal or informal, must meet certain standards for reliability and validity.

    http://psc.dss.ucdavis.edu/sommerb/sommerdemo/intro/validity.htm

    Furthermore, you are of the belief that there is but one legitimate explanation as to why a phenomenon occurs, when clearly there are other ones that I listed.

    Again, if you want to conduct the experiment, go right ahead.

  427. sabril says:

    Along with their references and contact information?

    Sure. The only difference would be that one is “[email protected]” and the other is “[email protected]” for email.

    Regardless, the explanations I offered are reasonable as to why an employer may select one candidate over another candidate.

    Not if the profiles are essentially identical.

    Of course it plays a role.

    I have no idea what your point is here. I would ask you to clarify, but there is no point. See below.

    I never made that claim directly or indirectly.

    You absolutely did. I asked what difference it makes if I am biased and you responded that that’s not how social psychology experimenters operate. You implicitly claimed that (1) my informal experiment should be held to the standard of a “social psychology experimenter”; and (2) by that standard, my experiment is invaled because of my supposed bias.

    Anyway, I have a few rules of debate. One of them is that I don’t engage with weasels, i.e. people who pretend that they said something different from what they said before.

    Another rule is that I insist people answer my reasonable questions so that I can better understand their position. In this exchange, I asked you a few questions in order to understand what standards you have for experiments, especially experiments for discrimination.

    I asked if you if it is ever possible to demonstrate job discrimination by using civil rights testers.

    I also asked you if you believe cigarette smoking increases one’s chances of getting cancer even though the evidence is based on correlations.

    I even asked you if there is anything at all you believe about the world which is the result of experimentation.

    And you ducked all of these questions. Because of course if one applies your super-duper strict standards, it would be impossible to demonstrate discrimination in a court of law by using civil rights testers; impossible to conclude that cigarette smoking increases one’s risk of lung cancer, and impossible to conclude anything about the world by means of experiments. An absurd result.

    So of course you ignored these questions, which is unsurprising. But I don’t engage with people who play hide the ball with their positions. Nor do I engage with people who weasel, i.e. pretend that they said something different from what they actually said.

    This exchange is concluded. Goodbye.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
  428. Corvinus says:
    @sabril

    “Not if the profiles are essentially identical.”

    You can keep saying this until you are blue in the face, but the fact remains an employer may choose one candidate over another candidate for different reasons even if they have similar or exact credentials.

    “In this exchange, I asked you a few questions in order to understand what standards you have for experiments, especially experiments for discrimination.”

    I clearly answered them, with appropriate links.

    “You implicitly claimed that (1) my informal experiment should be held to the standard of a “social psychology experimenter”; and (2) by that standard, my experiment is invaled because of my supposed bias.”

    Your informal experiment should be held to a standard that it is free from validity and reliability concerns, and one that acknowledges potential factors that may have led a person to respond accordingly.

    “Because of course if one applies your super-duper strict standards, it would be impossible to demonstrate discrimination in a court of law by using civil rights testers; impossible to conclude that cigarette smoking increases one’s risk of lung cancer, and impossible to conclude anything about the world by means of experiments.”

    You are being the weasel here by employing numerous strawmen here.

    “This exchange is concluded. Goodbye.”

    So I take it that you are not going to run the experiment?

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS
PastClassics
The sources of America’s immigration problems—and a possible solution
Are elite university admissions based on meritocracy and diversity as claimed?
The evidence is clear — but often ignored
What Was John McCain's True Wartime Record in Vietnam?
Hundreds of POWs may have been left to die in Vietnam, abandoned by their government—and our media.