The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection$
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
ISteve Content Generators Elizabeth Holmes and Ellen Pao Together!
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • B
Show CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll 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 three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

From the New York Times opinion page:

The Elizabeth Holmes Trial Is a Wake-Up Call for Sexism in Tech

Sept. 15, 2021

By Ellen Pao

Ms. Pao is a tech investor and chief executive of Project Include, a diversity, equity and inclusion nonprofit. She is the author of “Reset: My Fight for Inclusion and Lasting Change,” about her lawsuit against a venture capital firm and her experience running the technology company Reddit.

Elizabeth Holmes followed the Silicon Valley playbook to a T. She was focused and ambitious. She had a compelling vision to help humanity with technology for blood tests, and her ambition, she said, was driven by a personal fear of needles. She fit the pattern of the young, brilliant college dropout, even dressing like Steve Jobs.

When she founded the unconventional blood-testing company Theranos in 2003, I was relieved to see a woman finally benefit from the hyperbole that dominates venture investing, a world I worked in for nine years, total. Why shouldn’t a woman show the same single-minded confidence that her male peers did? By 2015, Ms. Holmes raised more than \$400 million in financing and Theranos was valued at \$9 billion. At last, I thought: a charismatic woman with a compelling vision, actually able to raise huge amounts of funding at astronomic valuations.

But after it was revealed that Theranos was not transparent when its blood-testing equipment failed, it became clear that the company would be the exception that proves the rule that tech chief executives rarely face the full consequences of the harm they cause.

Maybe because Ms. Holmes put herself in the medical care business despite not knowing much of anything about health. That’s field where fake it until you make it is a more sinister strategy than, say, selling shoes over the Internet, especially because she never ever had a clue how to make her bad idea work?

I haven’t heard of her bogus blood-testing device outright killing anybody, but it sent multiple people to the emergency room in a panic because it reported they were about to die, only for them to find out at the ER, when their blood was tested by machines that actually work, that they were fine.

Yet Ms. Holmes is also exceptional for the basic fact that she is a woman. Time and again, we see that the boys’ club that is the tech industry supports and protects its own — even when the costs are huge. And when the door cracks open ever so slightly to let a woman in, the same rules don’t apply. Indeed, as Ms. Holmes’s trial for fraud continues in San Jose, it’s clear that two things can be true. She should be held accountable for her actions as chief executive of Theranos. And it can be sexist to hold her accountable for alleged serious wrongdoing and not hold an array of men accountable for reports of wrongdoing or bad judgment.

Questionable, unethical, even dangerous behavior has run rampant in the male-dominated world of tech start-ups. Though never charged with crimes, WeWork’s Adam Neumann and Uber’s Travis Kalanick hyped their way into raising over \$10 billion for their companies, claiming they would disrupt their stagnant, tired industries.

For better or worse, Uber did disrupt the taxi business.

The power imbalance between mostly male investors and female entrepreneurs also hasn’t seemed to shift much — much less in a way that would empower or protect founders. In an industry where women founders receive only 11 percent of the seed through early stage funding and 64 percent of venture capital firms in the U.S. do not have any female partners, we should not be surprised. When you consider intersectional data, the bias is even more damning: Venture capitalists only gave a paltry 0.34 percent of funding within the United States to Black women founders in the first six months of this year. Sexism in tech is real and alive.

Interestingly, Holmes got little investment from Silicon Valley figures: Larry Ellison is the only one I can think of. Actual venture capitalists shied away from her company. Instead, she hit it big with Deep State elites and the very rich like Rupert Murdoch and various Waltons.

It’s almost as if Silicon Valley venture capitalists are better at investing in Silicon Valley start-ups than are famous people who aren’t Silicon Valley venture capitalists.

By the way, Ms. Pao, how is your gay black husband doing with the lawsuits against him alleging financial finagling? Excuse me, or perhaps your gay black ex-husband? From the New York Post:

Buddy Fletcher and Ellen Pao’s marriage ending with mudslinging and acrimony
By Carleton English and Emmett Berg
August 16, 2019 10:34pm Updated

Buddy Fletcher is so broke he can’t afford his divorce from Ellen Pao, The Post has learned.

The former high-flying hedge fund manager — who once rubbed elbows with Lauren Bacall and Roberta Flack — has no lawyer and is representing himself in a divorce from Pao, the former interim CEO of Reddit. He claims in court papers that the divorce, which is ongoing, left him “homeless” at one point, including a period of living in his car.

The couple — known as much for Pao’s Silicon Valley gender discrimination claims as Fletcher’s financial downfall — have been slowly working toward dissolution of their marriage in San Francisco state court since 2017, but they appear no closer to the end than they did two years ago.

One reason may be that Fletcher keeps making requests for financial assistance, including hard-fought efforts to squash his 2007 pre-nup with Pao, which a judge denied, and repeated requests for spousal support.

… Outside of court on Thursday, he declined to answer questions, including about whether he currently has a job or has plans to pay back his burned investors.

It’s a dramatic change in lifestyle for Fletcher, who once palled around with Bacall, Flack, Steve Buscemi and Gabby Sidibe. Sidibe starred in Lee Daniels’ 2009 hit “Precious,” which Fletcher’s brother, Geoffrey Fletcher, wrote based on the novel “Push” by the author Sapphire.

Fletcher was also known to hang around intellectual elites like Anita Hill and Henry Louis Gates Jr., who were the beneficiaries of a Harvard University fellowship that Fletcher funded in his own name.

“You’re also the Alphonse Fletcher university professor,” Charlie Rose asked Gates on PBS’ “Charlie Rose” in January 2007.

“That’s right,” Gates said. “I’m very humbled by that.”

Fletcher, whose worth was once estimated at \$150 million, made headlines in 2011 for suing the Dakota, where John Lennon was shot. The Harvard graduate had already been approved to buy four apartments in the Dakota, including one for his mother. At the time he filed suit he claimed he was refused permission to buy a fifth apartment because he’s African-American.

The case was ultimately dismissed — but not before it was reported that the Dakota rejected Fletcher for a fifth apartment because of his investment firm’s “apparent lack of profitability.”

Not long after that, Fletcher started facing questions from investors, including three Louisiana pension funds that had invested with Fletcher Asset Management on promises of double-digit returns. That kicked off a series of legal battles and bankruptcy filings that ended up detonating Fletcher’s reputation as a financial wizard.

After his main fund filed for bankruptcy in 2012, it emerged that he had been insolvent for years and had misspent investors’ money, including \$8 million to produce “Violet & Daisy,” a film directed by his Oscar-winning writer brother.

Those details came out in a 2013 report by the Manhattan federal bankruptcy trustee, who likened the case to “a Ponzi scheme.”

Pao, 49, lost her explosive sexual harassment suit against venture capital firm Kleiner Perkins in 2015.

She stepped down as interim CEO of Reddit that year following controversial decisions to ban threads for fostering harassment. She also banned revenge porn.

When Pao filed for divorce from Fletcher in 2017, they had been married for 10 years.

Days before the filing, she moved out of the luxury apartment they shared in downtown San Francisco into a new place she had just purchased at the Ritz-Carlton Club and Residences on Market Street.

Fletcher blasted Pao’s purchase of a condo in the luxury residential skyscraper. In court papers he described it as a “misappropriation of what are in all likelihood community funds in order to buy herself an exorbitant residence — in spite of her insistence on efforts to ‘downsize’ her apparent legion of cooks, nannies and chauffeurs.” …

Fletcher has also asked the court to order Pao to keep distance from him, his home and their daughter, alleging Pao “has threatened more than once to flush our daughter’s fish down the toilet as a punishment which led to our daughter crying.”

… The former hedgie has argued for spousal support on the grounds that he supported Pao for the first few years of the marriage — and now it was her turn to support him.

Pao’s “income has averaged more than \$2,000,000 per year for the past three years,” he said. By contrast, he was “homeless and without counsel, at risk of losing my physical health,” he told the court.

Pao has disputed Fletcher’s poverty claims, saying Fletcher couldn’t find a new place to live only because no landlords wanted to rent to the man who sued the Dakota.

“This case is not really about support,” Pao told the judge earlier this year. “Rather, it is about Buddy’s need for money to pay off the judgment against him and his businesses,” she said, referring to a \$213 million judgment issued against him by a New York state court, as well as a \$1.5 million judgment by the IRS.

Pao, who is now the CEO of her own diversity nonprofit, Project Include, tried to keep all the mud-slinging private by asking the court to seal the case, but was denied.

 
Hide 108 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Dear Ms Pao, having a penis does not empower you to defraud people and having a vagina does not allow you to avoid prosecution for defrauding people but you know this. And, as to Buddy Fleetcher living in his car, remember you can sleep in a car or a house, but you can’t drive your house.

    • LOL: Achmed E. Newman
    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    @Buffalo Joe


    And, as to Buddy Fleetcher living in his car, remember you can sleep in a car or a house, but you can’t drive your house.
     
    Steven Wright can:


    https://youtu.be/4GGyQNMPDkk&t=3m53s



    Wright is half-Italian, which is why he looks like Vincent Schiavelli without Marfan's syndrome.
  2. Ellen looks like a male extra from BTinLC:

    White men don’t want to bed her, at least, not the white men she prefers, because she is ugly. That is the source of her rage. Massive inferiority complex.

  3. The ultimate reprobate collection: Holmes, Fletcher and Pao (doing double duty as Fletcher’s beard!)

    • Agree: Bubba
    • LOL: Bardon Kaldian
  4. Anon[426] • Disclaimer says:

    it emerged that he had been insolvent for years and had misspent investors’ money, including \$8 million to produce “Violet & Daisy,” a film directed by his Oscar-winning writer brother.

    A black in charge will very soon be entangled in this sort of corrupt self-dealing and nepotism.

    Pao, who is now the CEO of her own diversity nonprofit, Project Include, …

    Project Includes only non-founder Board of Directors member is Cedric Brown, who Pao seems to be auditioning for the role of Mr. Pao II:

    Having been involved in tech industry philanthropy for nearly 20 years and, as one of the earliest employees of the Kapor Center for Social Impact, he’d helped enable a vibrant, vocal approach to diversity and inclusion to emerge….

    Originally from Winston-Salem, North Carolina, he trained as an educator and worked in schools. His family background and identity as a Black gay man shaped his passion for helping people gain social mobility. But after arriving in California for graduate school at Stanford ….

    Eventually he ended up shepherding more than \$70 million of investments in people, communities and companies, and seeing what a difference businesses can make in changing lives and attitudes.

    Her nonprofit “uses data and advocacy to accelerate diversity and inclusion solutions in the tech industry.” “The non-profit group plans to provide recommendations and data to early and mid-stage startups in order to accelerate diversity and inclusion solutions in the tech industry.”

    The 2018 Form 990 for the non-profit lists a consulting payment of \$135,229 to Pao for “data analysis, social media/content writing and editing, program management, etc.” The entire income for the non-profit was only \$306,070. I wonder what her ex-husband’s claim that she’s getting \$2 million a year is based on? Does she have other consulting income, or is that figure just standard divorce bullshit? She’s listed with some speakers bureaus, but I imangine that income stream died with Covid.

    All-in-all, the non-profit route seems like a nice way to get yourself a three-digit income. I’ve noticed that a lot of black women go this route. You don’t have a boss and you get to go around complaining and bitching about the lack of diversity for a living.

    • Thanks: HammerJack, El Dato
    • Replies: @Almost Missouri
    @Anon

    Thanks for looking up the 990 so I don't have to.


    I wonder what her ex-husband’s claim that she’s getting $2 million a year is based on? Does she have other consulting income, or is that figure just standard divorce bullshit?
     
    Maybe she's got passive income from investments, but more likely her ex just chose a year when she exercised some stock options or sold a house or something and implies that is ongoing revenue. The last line of the article says the court records are unsealed so presumably this could be looked up, if only at the courthouse, but I can't work up enough interest to check.

    The real surprise to me is that the courts have apparently awarded custody of their daughters (poor kid! product of a mating grift) to the father, particularly one "living in his car". Usually that only happens if the mother is egregiously unfit, and even then, has any court ever awarded custody to car-dwelling father? So either Pao was so obviously hyper-egregiously unfit that even the slavishly pro-fem California courts couldn't deny it, or being gay and black trumps being female and Asian in the new intersectionality sweepstakes of California jurisprudence.

    P.S. I presume by "three-digit income" you mean like a three-digit-k income.

    Replies: @Jack D

    , @LP5
    @Anon


    Her nonprofit “uses data and advocacy to accelerate diversity and inclusion solutions in the tech industry.”
     
    Pao has a knack for using diversity skills to redistribute money to herself, to be followed by the inevitable losses and lawsuits.
  5. Pao, who is now the CEO of her own diversity nonprofit, Project Include

    I wonder if Ms. Pao is attempting to follow in the footsteps of another ISteve content provider; Morris Dees founder of the Southern Poverty Law Center.

    • Replies: @The Anti-Gnostic
    @George Taylor

    Is there a single non-profit left out there that isn't pure rent-seeking? Sure is amazing how many people can make a good living not working for a profit.

    , @Alden
    @George Taylor

    When I become dictator of America, all non profits will be abolished. Their vast funds will be used to set up a network of Whites only private schools. Curriculum dictated by me.
    As for the employees creators and executives of the non profits; put somewhere, something done to them that prevents them from doing further damage.

  6. Elizabeth Holmes followed the Silicon Valley playbook to a T. She was focused and ambitious. She had a compelling vision to help humanity with technology for blood tests, and her ambition, she said, was driven by a personal fear of needles. She fit the pattern of the young, brilliant college dropout, even dressing like Steve Jobs.

    And after all, that’s what really makes you smart and capable – wearing a turtleneck.

    It’s remarkable how shallow and stupid so many of the “elites” are. Or course, Ellen Pao isn’t in the top rank of said elite. She’s just a third-rate grifter. Ugly inside and out.

    • Agree: Alden
    • Replies: @Jack D
    @Mr. Anon

    Well dressing like Steve Jobs AND having a fear of needles (has she been vaxxed?) AND being a college dropout - this is a well known trifecta for success.

    Having a compelling vision to help humanity is not enough. You either have to have the technical skills to make your vision a reality or the managerial skills to hire people who can. Holmes had neither. And your vision has to NOT defy the laws of physics and biology or else even hiring the best people (not that Holmes hired the best) won't be able to convert your vision into reality.

    Compelling visions are a dime a dozen - a pill that turns water into gasoline. A flying car. A plane that will take you from NY to Tokyo in 30 minutes. A safe and effective pill that allows you to eat all you want and not get fat. A pill that cures Covid after you have been infected. A pill that makes black people smarter and less violent. A pill that would reverse Joe Biden's senility. A noninvasive test that detects pancreatic cancer (ALL cancers) at an early stage when it is still treatable. If I didn't have to be constrained by the limits of what is physically possible and feasible within the limits of technology, I could give you a trillion $ idea every day for a year and not run out.

    Replies: @HammerJack, @James J O'Meara

    , @James J O'Meara
    @Mr. Anon

    "Elizabeth Holmes followed the Silicon Valley playbook to a T. She was focused and ambitious. She had a compelling vision to help humanity with technology for blood tests, and her ambition, she said, was driven by a personal fear of needles. She fit the pattern of the young, brilliant college dropout, even dressing like Steve Jobs."

    She did everything, except, you know, develop an actual product.

    , @El Dato
    @Mr. Anon

    It is really a weird passage. If it is not tongue-in-cheek it seems to imply that faking it and basically playacting a composite of elements stitched together from "success stories" is supposed to be per se the enabler of success, overriding reality.

    Cargo cultism. Well it is 2021.

    Replies: @Forbes, @J.Ross

    , @Muggles
    @Mr. Anon


    She had a compelling vision to help humanity with technology for blood tests, and her ambition, she said, was driven by a personal fear of needles.
     
    Can you imagine any actual male being described so laudably as this?

    A "compelling vision" and "his ambition" "he said" was "driven by a personal fear of needles."

    Not only would "he" be laughed out of any room this nonsense was uttered in, but probably beaten up on the way out by outraged would-be investors.

    Since Lizzie Holmes was a blondish female, this kind of praise, usually reserved for the severely retarded, is instead cited as evidence of her profound personal motivation. Only a stone hearted sexist could think otherwise...
  7. Lizzie Holmes dressed like Steve Jobs, because she was totally faking an illusion.
    Appearances were all she had.

    • Replies: @Forbes
    @SaneClownPosse

    Performative theatre--it's all the rage these days. Just turn on your teevee and see the media circus staffed with all the clowns.

    The list is endless: Dr. Fauci, Gen. Milley, President Biden, not to mention all the talking heads...

  8. Query: did Miss Pao’s former employer, the venture capital firm of Kleiner Perkins, put any of its money into Theranos? Steve’s comment that “actual venture capitalists shied away from her company” suggests the answer is no.

    Someone should ask Pao whether, had she been at Kleiner Perkins when Holmes was trying to get funding, she would have recommended the firm invest in a company whose Big Idea was completely unproven and likely unworkable.

  9. I liked the 2nd section on the Pao-wer couple better. That was highly amusing. The best was that part about the fish. Mr. Fletcher and their daughter ought to be thankful for that coming court order. Fish can swim, Get Tiger Mom too worked up about the settlement and it may have been out of the toilet bowl and into the fryer.

  10. And it can be sexist to hold her accountable for alleged serious wrongdoing and not hold an array of men accountable for reports of wrongdoing or bad judgment.

    Questionable, unethical, even dangerous behavior has run rampant in the male-dominated world of tech start-ups. Though never charged with crimes, WeWork’s Adam Neumann and Uber’s Travis Kalanick hyped their way

    Do you see the sleight of hand? She tries to equate Holmes, who stands accused of wire fraud, with these two men who are guilty only of “hype”. If you are a smart person and not a fraudster, you have lawyers who can tell you when “hype” crosses the line into wire fraud and keep you well inside that line, and then the worst that will happen to you is that Ellen Pau will criticize you, but you won’t get sent to Federal prison.

    Unless she can show that Neumann and Kalanick committed wire fraud just like Holmes and were not prosecuted for the same acts, she hasn’t really proven her charge of sexism. Which is not surprising because she tried the same “sexism” shtick on her former colleagues/ bed buddies at Kleiner Perkins and the jury sent her packing. But I guess the NY Times editors are more gullible than San Francisco juries, which is saying a lot.

    BTW Holmes and Sunny had very expensive and good lawyers, but they didn’t tell them what they were doing, they just used them as legal pit bulls to go after their enemies.

    • Thanks: Alden
  11. ‘…Yet Ms. Holmes is also exceptional for the basic fact that she is a woman. Time and again, we see that the boys’ club that is the tech industry supports and protects its own — even when the costs are huge…’

    Wasn’t the opposite demonstrated to some extent?

    Tech interviewers were more likely to hire a candidate if they were allowed to know that she was female than if they were limited to gender-neutral information?

    • Replies: @J.Ross
    @Colin Wright

    That and it prided itself on being an industry run by engineers, on not having any fat. Really the opposite of a club.

  12. • Replies: @Jack D
    @TGGP

    I disagree with Andrew. Holmes didn't start out to be a fraudster. If that was her plan, she would have just funneled all the money to a Cayman Islands bank account, but instead she spent most of it on attempts to build a working product. Her plan was "fake it 'till you make it".

    So Gates is sympathetic because that was his plan too - when IBM called him up and ask him if he had an operating system for a PC, he lied and told them "sure" and then he went out real quick and bought one from someone. But his plan succeeded and hers failed and that's the tragic part.

    But trying and failing is not a crime. It's the Watergate story - the real crime is the coverup. When her machine didn't work, she didn't own up to failure, she just starting lying and faking results. And not lying about how soon your taxi was coming but about things that affected people's health.

    Replies: @epebble, @James J O'Meara, @Hypnotoad666, @El Dato, @International Jew, @NOTA

  13. I was thinking Elizabeth Holmes would work as a successor to Joe Biden — but Ellen Pao sounds worthy of consideration as well.

    Come to think of it, why count out Buddy Fletcher? Just so long as the ‘winning’ candidate is even worse than ol’ Joe.

  14. @Mr. Anon

    Elizabeth Holmes followed the Silicon Valley playbook to a T. She was focused and ambitious. She had a compelling vision to help humanity with technology for blood tests, and her ambition, she said, was driven by a personal fear of needles. She fit the pattern of the young, brilliant college dropout, even dressing like Steve Jobs.
     
    And after all, that's what really makes you smart and capable - wearing a turtleneck.

    It's remarkable how shallow and stupid so many of the "elites" are. Or course, Ellen Pao isn't in the top rank of said elite. She's just a third-rate grifter. Ugly inside and out.

    Replies: @Jack D, @James J O'Meara, @El Dato, @Muggles

    Well dressing like Steve Jobs AND having a fear of needles (has she been vaxxed?) AND being a college dropout – this is a well known trifecta for success.

    Having a compelling vision to help humanity is not enough. You either have to have the technical skills to make your vision a reality or the managerial skills to hire people who can. Holmes had neither. And your vision has to NOT defy the laws of physics and biology or else even hiring the best people (not that Holmes hired the best) won’t be able to convert your vision into reality.

    Compelling visions are a dime a dozen – a pill that turns water into gasoline. A flying car. A plane that will take you from NY to Tokyo in 30 minutes. A safe and effective pill that allows you to eat all you want and not get fat. A pill that cures Covid after you have been infected. A pill that makes black people smarter and less violent. A pill that would reverse Joe Biden’s senility. A noninvasive test that detects pancreatic cancer (ALL cancers) at an early stage when it is still treatable. If I didn’t have to be constrained by the limits of what is physically possible and feasible within the limits of technology, I could give you a trillion \$ idea every day for a year and not run out.

    • Replies: @HammerJack
    @Jack D


    A noninvasive test that detects pancreatic cancer (ALL cancers) at an early stage when it is still treatable.
     
    Modern bio-tech is nearly there on that one!
    Here's a photo of the prototype:


    https://i.ibb.co/z23hJ4s/9039e058cd13809fcfb91f6ac8d055d7.jpg

    Replies: @Pharaoh

    , @James J O'Meara
    @Jack D

    " If I didn’t have to be constrained by the limits of what is physically possible and feasible within the limits of technology, I could give you a trillion $ idea every day for a year and not run out."

    Like that moron Henry Ford, three companies run into bankruptcy, now he wants to make a car he can sell for $300! AND pay his workers (a bunch of monkeys) 10x the going wage! Good day to you, sir!

    Replies: @notsaying, @Jack D, @mmack, @NOTA


  15. Why the long face, Ellen?

    Ellen? Ellen

  16. @TGGP
    Andrew Gelman on Theranos:
    https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2021/09/08/why-did-bill-gates-say-this-about-bad-blood/

    Replies: @Jack D

    I disagree with Andrew. Holmes didn’t start out to be a fraudster. If that was her plan, she would have just funneled all the money to a Cayman Islands bank account, but instead she spent most of it on attempts to build a working product. Her plan was “fake it ’till you make it”.

    So Gates is sympathetic because that was his plan too – when IBM called him up and ask him if he had an operating system for a PC, he lied and told them “sure” and then he went out real quick and bought one from someone. But his plan succeeded and hers failed and that’s the tragic part.

    But trying and failing is not a crime. It’s the Watergate story – the real crime is the coverup. When her machine didn’t work, she didn’t own up to failure, she just starting lying and faking results. And not lying about how soon your taxi was coming but about things that affected people’s health.

    • Replies: @epebble
    @Jack D

    It’s the Watergate story – the real crime is the coverup.


    Breaking in of the Democratic National Committee headquarters.

    Burglarizing the Democratic National Committee's (DNC) headquarters to photograph campaign documents and install listening devices in telephones.

    Wiretapping and monitoring the telephone conversations.

     
    are all routine political operations of the 1972 era?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watergate_scandal#/media/File:Government_Exhibit_133,_Chapstick_Tubes_with_Hidden_Microphones_-_NARA_-_304967.tif

    Replies: @Almost Missouri, @Forbes, @Alden

    , @James J O'Meara
    @Jack D

    "So Gates is sympathetic because that was his plan too – when IBM called him up and ask him if he had an operating system for a PC, he lied and told them “sure” and then he went out real quick and bought one from someone. But his plan succeeded and hers failed and that’s the tragic part."

    Exactly, but what's "tragic" is that Gates isn't in prison.

    , @Hypnotoad666
    @Jack D


    But trying and failing is not a crime.
     
    When you're using other people's money, it can be. In fact, even when you ultimately succeed, it can be a crime. Embezzlement, for example, often happens when some fiduciary figures he can "borrow" his client's money, make a profitable investment and then put the funds back in the account before anyone is the wiser. No harm, no foul. Right?

    In reality, financial success hides a lot of questionable practices. But failure does the opposite. As Warren Buffet said, in a slightly different context, "when the tide goes out, you find out who has been swimming naked."

    , @El Dato
    @Jack D


    So Gates is sympathetic because that was his plan too – when IBM called him up and ask him if he had an operating system for a PC, he lied and told them “sure” and then he went out real quick and bought one from someone. But his plan succeeded and hers failed and that’s the tragic part.
     
    That's not tragic "tragic".

    Gates knew delivering was physically possible and also knew of the (somewhat awkwardly) re-engineered (some say "ripped-off") CP/M named QDOS so he could deliver on his contract in a usual business "sharp practice" approach.

    That's the same approach you take when your prospective employer asks you whether you know about and have experience with latest fad "technology" that will be completely forgotten & buried in 2 years then you say "sure" then you go home and take a Coursera course.

    If Liz had sold her stuff as a "high-risk research effort that is in its infancy and might go nowhere" there wouldn't have been a problem.

    https://www.theregister.com/2007/07/30/msdos_paternity_suit_resolved/


    The story of how Bill Gates came to acquire an operating system is well known. In 1980, Kildall's Digital Research provided the operating system for a wide range of microcomputers, and was established as the industry standard. IBM had approached Microsoft, then a tiny software company in the Seattle area, to provide a BASIC run-time for its first micro, the IBM PC. Gates offered to provide IBM an operating system too, even though he didn't have one at the time. This required a hasty purchase.

    Microsoft turned to Tim Paterson, whose garage operation Seattle Computer Products was selling a CP/M clone called 86-DOS. This had been developed under the code name QDOS (for "quick and dirty operating system"), and SCP sold it alongside an add-in CPU card. Microsoft turned this into the hugely successful DOS franchise.

    (The oft-told story of Kildall spurning IBM to fly his plane is deeply misleading. It was IBM's distribution and pricing of CP/M, which in the end was one of three operating systems offered with the first IBM PC, that ensured MS-DOS captured the market.)

     

    Alternatively and somewhat contradictorily

    https://www.techopedia.com/2/31154/software/cpm-the-story-of-the-os-that-almost-succeeded-over-windows


    The growing success of personal computers made IBM hungry for a piece of the action in 1980. The company decided to get into the market with its own PC. Big Blue usually designed entire computers by themselves, but figured that it would be too late with the company’s lumbering internal processes.

    The company decided to do something completely unheard of for IBM. It would use off-the-shelf components and integrate them into a complete system.

    CP/M was the obvious choice for the operating system, given how popular it was and how easy it was to port to other systems.

    IBM initially approached Microsoft for CP/M, apparently thinking that they could license CP/M since they made the Apple II card. To its credit, Microsoft pointed IBM’s execs toward DRI [the company owning CP/M] down in California.

    What happened next has been subject to endless speculation and an urban legend in the tech industry.

    On the day when IBM showed up to negotiate with DRI, Kildall was delivering some documentation to a client using his private plane, leaving Dorothy and the company’s lawyers to hash out the deal. DRI apparently got stuck on the nondisclosure agreement after Kildall returned later in the day, and ultimately the deal came to nothing.

    Desperate for an operating system, IBM turned to Microsoft. They found a CP/M clone written by a friend of Bill Gates, Tim Paterson of Seattle Computer Products and the designer of the SoftCard, dubbed QDOS, or "Quick and Dirty Operating System." Microsoft licensed this to IBM so it would be ready in time.

    Microsoft polished it and offered it to IBM as PC-DOS. The company convinced IBM to let them keep the rights to the operating system to license to other computer makers. IBM, confident that no one would clone the BIOS, the one piece of proprietary technology in the PC, agreed. (Since the computer you’re reading this on likely wasn’t made by IBM, it’s obvious how that turned out.)

    Gary Kildall heard about the deal and threatened to sue IBM if it released PC-DOS. A deal was worked out where IBM would offer both systems, but IBM sold PC-DOS for $40, but CP/M-86, the PC version, was $240. It was hard to justify paying a higher price for what amounted to the same thing, and most people chose DOS. Most CP/M applications, such as the WordStar word processing system, were ported over to MS-DOS.
     

    Replies: @Jack D

    , @International Jew
    @Jack D


    So Gates is sympathetic because that was his plan too – when IBM called him up and ask him if he had an operating system for a PC, he lied and told them “sure” and then he went out real quick and bought one from someone.
     
    Not really. He still had to write the device driver for IBM's floppy disk, and integrate that with the parts he wanted to keep. Gates' contribution was by no means trivial. But neither was it speculative or in any way pie-in-the-sky; writing a device driver was (and is) pretty standard stuff.

    Most new software products are like that; they build on a whole lot of existing code.

    Today, instead of buying something, Gates would have started with Linux and tweeked that. That's the origin of a lot of things now, like Riverbed, VMware, and Android.

    Replies: @El Dato

    , @NOTA
    @Jack D

    I think a lot of fraud works this way. Like a gambler who keeps borrowing money, stealing and hocking relatives' jewelry, stealing from the till, etc., in the fervent belief that he will somehow win it all back and everything will be forgiven. I doubt Holmes started out planning fraud, but she reached a point where fraud was the pnly way to put off the day of reckoning. And eventually it all collapsed.

    Replies: @Jack D

  17. 2 million a year at a diversity start-up non-profit?

    nice work if you can get it

  18. “because she never ever had a clue how to make her bad idea work?”

    I disagree. In theory it’s actually a pretty good idea, if only it had some solid research and testing behind it. In theory this type of technology is the way of the future, which is what STEM related fields are all about (especially in Silicon Valley). What better idea, if proven to conclusively work on a wide scale, than a total elimination of all blood testing and instead having a computerized machine do all the work? Just as currently new technologies in medicine (e.g. earlier detection of cancer, and other detections of things that an ordinary Xray can’t detect, etc) are paving the way for the future, Miss Holmes idea, if it had proven to be successful, would be one of the potential breakthroughs of the early third of the twenty-first century.

    Also, it’s fairly obvious why the Deep State honchos would be all gung ho for the idea over Silicon Valley types. Silicon Valley leaders average around the ages of 55-60. The Deep State leaders that Miss Holmes went to with her idea, many of them averaged around 80-85 yrs old. At that time of life, constant blood work is almost a monthly, if not daily reality for many of them. A machine that is just as effective while eliminating blood work entirely, yet producing the same if not more accurate results, would be an amazing technological breakthrough. Not quite on the level of last century’s Salk Vaccine or the discovery of penicillin, but not too shabby either.

    If only it had succeeded. Perhaps one day, a legitimate and serious scientist will take Miss Holmes’ idea, improve upon it, and with actual research and development, make it the amazing breakthrough it has the potential to be.

  19. Anonymous[337] • Disclaimer says:

    The best part of “Bad Blood” is this characterization of the highly financially successful Indian immigrant (the kind that we constantly here about; Sunny got very rich even before Theranos):

    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.

    It’s too bad his trial was allowed to be separated from hers.

  20. @Jack D
    @TGGP

    I disagree with Andrew. Holmes didn't start out to be a fraudster. If that was her plan, she would have just funneled all the money to a Cayman Islands bank account, but instead she spent most of it on attempts to build a working product. Her plan was "fake it 'till you make it".

    So Gates is sympathetic because that was his plan too - when IBM called him up and ask him if he had an operating system for a PC, he lied and told them "sure" and then he went out real quick and bought one from someone. But his plan succeeded and hers failed and that's the tragic part.

    But trying and failing is not a crime. It's the Watergate story - the real crime is the coverup. When her machine didn't work, she didn't own up to failure, she just starting lying and faking results. And not lying about how soon your taxi was coming but about things that affected people's health.

    Replies: @epebble, @James J O'Meara, @Hypnotoad666, @El Dato, @International Jew, @NOTA

    It’s the Watergate story – the real crime is the coverup.

    Breaking in of the Democratic National Committee headquarters.

    Burglarizing the Democratic National Committee’s (DNC) headquarters to photograph campaign documents and install listening devices in telephones.

    Wiretapping and monitoring the telephone conversations.

    are all routine political operations of the 1972 era?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watergate_scandal#/media/File:Government_Exhibit_133,_Chapstick_Tubes_with_Hidden_Microphones_-_NARA_-_304967.tif

    • Replies: @Almost Missouri
    @epebble

    Ah, I see you are not familiar with our Democrat Party, who have weaponized the entire deep state, including the spy and law enforcement agencies, against their political opponents, which they now define as approximately half of the national population.

    , @Forbes
    @epebble

    All because John Dean was "visiting" prostitutes, and he wanted to know if the DNC had the dirt on him. Kinda funny...

    , @Alden
    @epebble

    DC was much much more blacker and more criminal in 1972 than it is now. The Watergate building is in DC, not the suburbs. At the time, breaking and entering and theft of papers wasn’t considered a serious crime in DC at all. That was the era in which the DC courts ruled that the DC police have no duty to respond to calls. Even for a breaking and entering burglary theft and rape of 3 White women by a gang of blacks. The women did manage to call 911. But the police never came. The women sued DCPD The court ruled the police had no duty to respond to a 911 call. The only murders that were solved were domestics in which the suspect was found holding the gun over the dead body.

    That was the era in which it was unsafe to walk 1 block from the White House and the Capitol building. B&E burglary theft of some papers were trivial in the context of DC murders and other felonies at the time.

  21. The tawdry saga of Fletcher and Pao is like “The Bold and the Beautiful”, minus the beauty.

    • LOL: Achmed E. Newman
  22. sexist to hold her accountable for alleged serious wrongdoing and not hold an array of men accountable for reports of wrongdoing

    Right on sister! It’s about time we started holding men responsible for reports of wrongdoing! Take prisons, for example. Something like 95% of the people incarcerated in prisons are women, right? Hold on, someone’s handing me a note.

    • Replies: @Bridgeport_IPA
    @HammerJack

    Somehow, I couldn't help but hear Norm Macdonald reading that last line: "Hold the phone! Turns out, according to this note I've been handed..."

  23. @Jack D
    @Mr. Anon

    Well dressing like Steve Jobs AND having a fear of needles (has she been vaxxed?) AND being a college dropout - this is a well known trifecta for success.

    Having a compelling vision to help humanity is not enough. You either have to have the technical skills to make your vision a reality or the managerial skills to hire people who can. Holmes had neither. And your vision has to NOT defy the laws of physics and biology or else even hiring the best people (not that Holmes hired the best) won't be able to convert your vision into reality.

    Compelling visions are a dime a dozen - a pill that turns water into gasoline. A flying car. A plane that will take you from NY to Tokyo in 30 minutes. A safe and effective pill that allows you to eat all you want and not get fat. A pill that cures Covid after you have been infected. A pill that makes black people smarter and less violent. A pill that would reverse Joe Biden's senility. A noninvasive test that detects pancreatic cancer (ALL cancers) at an early stage when it is still treatable. If I didn't have to be constrained by the limits of what is physically possible and feasible within the limits of technology, I could give you a trillion $ idea every day for a year and not run out.

    Replies: @HammerJack, @James J O'Meara

    A noninvasive test that detects pancreatic cancer (ALL cancers) at an early stage when it is still treatable.

    Modern bio-tech is nearly there on that one!
    Here’s a photo of the prototype:

    • Agree: El Dato
    • Replies: @Pharaoh
    @HammerJack


    Modern bio-tech is nearly there on that one!
    Here’s a photo of the prototype:
     
    The sniffing dog could be superfluous soon. Here's the real prototype for the future, and it's inventor Oshiorenoya Agabi:

    https://i1.wp.com/thespoon.tech/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Blue-On-Table.Koniku.jpg


    https://dldnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/Osh-Agabi-Flickr-DLD19.jpg


    More info:

    https://thespoon.tech/konikus-synthetic-sniffer-identifies-smells-just-dont-call-it-a-digital-nose/

    Koniku is using actual protein molecules to detect different compounds that objects (such as ripening strawberries) emit. “The cells [in the Konikore] are genetically modified to create sensors that would exist in your nose,” Agabi said. “We are not mimicking olfaction, we are using the same olfaction that exists in the nose of a dog.”

    Koniku currently has a library of more than 4,000 compounds that it can identify, which the company will ratchet up to hundreds of thousands “soon” according to Agabi.

     

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar

  24. @Mr. Anon

    Elizabeth Holmes followed the Silicon Valley playbook to a T. She was focused and ambitious. She had a compelling vision to help humanity with technology for blood tests, and her ambition, she said, was driven by a personal fear of needles. She fit the pattern of the young, brilliant college dropout, even dressing like Steve Jobs.
     
    And after all, that's what really makes you smart and capable - wearing a turtleneck.

    It's remarkable how shallow and stupid so many of the "elites" are. Or course, Ellen Pao isn't in the top rank of said elite. She's just a third-rate grifter. Ugly inside and out.

    Replies: @Jack D, @James J O'Meara, @El Dato, @Muggles

    “Elizabeth Holmes followed the Silicon Valley playbook to a T. She was focused and ambitious. She had a compelling vision to help humanity with technology for blood tests, and her ambition, she said, was driven by a personal fear of needles. She fit the pattern of the young, brilliant college dropout, even dressing like Steve Jobs.”

    She did everything, except, you know, develop an actual product.

    • Agree: Alden
  25. @Jack D
    @TGGP

    I disagree with Andrew. Holmes didn't start out to be a fraudster. If that was her plan, she would have just funneled all the money to a Cayman Islands bank account, but instead she spent most of it on attempts to build a working product. Her plan was "fake it 'till you make it".

    So Gates is sympathetic because that was his plan too - when IBM called him up and ask him if he had an operating system for a PC, he lied and told them "sure" and then he went out real quick and bought one from someone. But his plan succeeded and hers failed and that's the tragic part.

    But trying and failing is not a crime. It's the Watergate story - the real crime is the coverup. When her machine didn't work, she didn't own up to failure, she just starting lying and faking results. And not lying about how soon your taxi was coming but about things that affected people's health.

    Replies: @epebble, @James J O'Meara, @Hypnotoad666, @El Dato, @International Jew, @NOTA

    “So Gates is sympathetic because that was his plan too – when IBM called him up and ask him if he had an operating system for a PC, he lied and told them “sure” and then he went out real quick and bought one from someone. But his plan succeeded and hers failed and that’s the tragic part.”

    Exactly, but what’s “tragic” is that Gates isn’t in prison.

  26. This is ridiculous. The woman was a crook. She lied up and down. She is still not telling the truth.

    She is using others to lie on her behalf. Her father-in-law showed up at jury selection and lied about who he was to journalists.

    “When pushed, Evans introduced himself to reporters as ‘Hanson’ and claimed he was just a ‘concerned citizen’ who had always wanted to attend a trial, and who wanted to make sure the media was reporting the proceedings accurately.”

    Lies, lies, lies about blood tests and about what is doable using current medical technology. Defending this piece of work now is sending the last message you want to send anybody about women in tech. Elizabeth Holmes is, thank God, an aberration. She is an abhorrent woman who evidently married into a rich family of people like her.

    I knew the Times had lost it about Wokeness but I thought it was still solid on other things. If defending Holmes on the grounds of Wokeness is required or if the Wokeness reality filter is being applied to business, the law and medicine too, God help us all.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9993307/Elizabeth-Holmes-father-law-posed-concerned-citizen-days-fraud-trial.html

    • Agree: El Dato
  27. @Jack D
    @Mr. Anon

    Well dressing like Steve Jobs AND having a fear of needles (has she been vaxxed?) AND being a college dropout - this is a well known trifecta for success.

    Having a compelling vision to help humanity is not enough. You either have to have the technical skills to make your vision a reality or the managerial skills to hire people who can. Holmes had neither. And your vision has to NOT defy the laws of physics and biology or else even hiring the best people (not that Holmes hired the best) won't be able to convert your vision into reality.

    Compelling visions are a dime a dozen - a pill that turns water into gasoline. A flying car. A plane that will take you from NY to Tokyo in 30 minutes. A safe and effective pill that allows you to eat all you want and not get fat. A pill that cures Covid after you have been infected. A pill that makes black people smarter and less violent. A pill that would reverse Joe Biden's senility. A noninvasive test that detects pancreatic cancer (ALL cancers) at an early stage when it is still treatable. If I didn't have to be constrained by the limits of what is physically possible and feasible within the limits of technology, I could give you a trillion $ idea every day for a year and not run out.

    Replies: @HammerJack, @James J O'Meara

    ” If I didn’t have to be constrained by the limits of what is physically possible and feasible within the limits of technology, I could give you a trillion \$ idea every day for a year and not run out.”

    Like that moron Henry Ford, three companies run into bankruptcy, now he wants to make a car he can sell for \$300! AND pay his workers (a bunch of monkeys) 10x the going wage! Good day to you, sir!

    • Disagree: El Dato
    • Replies: @notsaying
    @James J O'Meara

    There will always be a tension and disagreement about what makes a person a innovator who everybody praises and what makes them an unrealistic dreamer who had no chance to succeed.

    I looked Ford up and whatever mistakes he made early on, he "only" doubled wages and only once he had thousands of workers:

    "By late 1913, Henry Ford’s assembly line was in full swing. Production of the revolutionary Model T amped up and Ford’s dream of making cars faster for less was turning into a reality.

    At the time, workers received $2.34 for a nine-hour day. That, however, changed in January 1914, when Ford offered to pay workers $5 for an eight-hour day, more than double their previous wages."

    Holmes is no Ford. Not even close. To condemn Holmes is not to condemn all risk takers. Not at all

    https://www.hotcars.com/real-reason-ford-pay-workers-5-day/

    , @Jack D
    @James J O'Meara

    Did Ford show his backers a car with an Olds engine and claim that he made it (because his engines didn't really work)? That's what Holmes did.

    Did Ford in fact go on and make millions of car? Holmes never made a single working product.

    , @mmack
    @James J O'Meara

    Other than the fact that:
    - Henry Ford built working prototypes of automobiles he could show investors
    - Henry Ford built racing cars that showcased his company’s technology to investors
    - Henry Ford’s second company became the Cadillac division of General Motors (Henry left, the company didn’t go broke)
    - Henry Ford’s third company has existed just shy of 120 years

    That’s a perfect analogy.

    Replies: @Steve Sailer

    , @NOTA
    @James J O'Meara

    Failure and fraud aren't the same thing.

  28. @James J O'Meara
    @Jack D

    " If I didn’t have to be constrained by the limits of what is physically possible and feasible within the limits of technology, I could give you a trillion $ idea every day for a year and not run out."

    Like that moron Henry Ford, three companies run into bankruptcy, now he wants to make a car he can sell for $300! AND pay his workers (a bunch of monkeys) 10x the going wage! Good day to you, sir!

    Replies: @notsaying, @Jack D, @mmack, @NOTA

    There will always be a tension and disagreement about what makes a person a innovator who everybody praises and what makes them an unrealistic dreamer who had no chance to succeed.

    I looked Ford up and whatever mistakes he made early on, he “only” doubled wages and only once he had thousands of workers:

    “By late 1913, Henry Ford’s assembly line was in full swing. Production of the revolutionary Model T amped up and Ford’s dream of making cars faster for less was turning into a reality.

    At the time, workers received \$2.34 for a nine-hour day. That, however, changed in January 1914, when Ford offered to pay workers \$5 for an eight-hour day, more than double their previous wages.”

    Holmes is no Ford. Not even close. To condemn Holmes is not to condemn all risk takers. Not at all

    https://www.hotcars.com/real-reason-ford-pay-workers-5-day/

  29. technology company Reddit

    LOLNO.

    Yet Ms. Holmes is also exceptional for the basic fact that she is a woman.

    How dare these cisgender writers gender-assign her so arrogantly!

    Btw., Carly Fiorina apparently identified as a woman too. She also wrecked HP.

    BTw, I’m pretty sue that during the dot-com era there were lots of “women on posters” though I can’t remember any. Probably not in BYTE but maybe someone has old editions of Forbes, The Economist and various mags of that ilk that can be checked.

  30. @Jack D
    @TGGP

    I disagree with Andrew. Holmes didn't start out to be a fraudster. If that was her plan, she would have just funneled all the money to a Cayman Islands bank account, but instead she spent most of it on attempts to build a working product. Her plan was "fake it 'till you make it".

    So Gates is sympathetic because that was his plan too - when IBM called him up and ask him if he had an operating system for a PC, he lied and told them "sure" and then he went out real quick and bought one from someone. But his plan succeeded and hers failed and that's the tragic part.

    But trying and failing is not a crime. It's the Watergate story - the real crime is the coverup. When her machine didn't work, she didn't own up to failure, she just starting lying and faking results. And not lying about how soon your taxi was coming but about things that affected people's health.

    Replies: @epebble, @James J O'Meara, @Hypnotoad666, @El Dato, @International Jew, @NOTA

    But trying and failing is not a crime.

    When you’re using other people’s money, it can be. In fact, even when you ultimately succeed, it can be a crime. Embezzlement, for example, often happens when some fiduciary figures he can “borrow” his client’s money, make a profitable investment and then put the funds back in the account before anyone is the wiser. No harm, no foul. Right?

    In reality, financial success hides a lot of questionable practices. But failure does the opposite. As Warren Buffet said, in a slightly different context, “when the tide goes out, you find out who has been swimming naked.”

  31. @Jack D
    @TGGP

    I disagree with Andrew. Holmes didn't start out to be a fraudster. If that was her plan, she would have just funneled all the money to a Cayman Islands bank account, but instead she spent most of it on attempts to build a working product. Her plan was "fake it 'till you make it".

    So Gates is sympathetic because that was his plan too - when IBM called him up and ask him if he had an operating system for a PC, he lied and told them "sure" and then he went out real quick and bought one from someone. But his plan succeeded and hers failed and that's the tragic part.

    But trying and failing is not a crime. It's the Watergate story - the real crime is the coverup. When her machine didn't work, she didn't own up to failure, she just starting lying and faking results. And not lying about how soon your taxi was coming but about things that affected people's health.

    Replies: @epebble, @James J O'Meara, @Hypnotoad666, @El Dato, @International Jew, @NOTA

    So Gates is sympathetic because that was his plan too – when IBM called him up and ask him if he had an operating system for a PC, he lied and told them “sure” and then he went out real quick and bought one from someone. But his plan succeeded and hers failed and that’s the tragic part.

    That’s not tragic “tragic”.

    Gates knew delivering was physically possible and also knew of the (somewhat awkwardly) re-engineered (some say “ripped-off”) CP/M named QDOS so he could deliver on his contract in a usual business “sharp practice” approach.

    That’s the same approach you take when your prospective employer asks you whether you know about and have experience with latest fad “technology” that will be completely forgotten & buried in 2 years then you say “sure” then you go home and take a Coursera course.

    If Liz had sold her stuff as a “high-risk research effort that is in its infancy and might go nowhere” there wouldn’t have been a problem.

    [MORE]

    https://www.theregister.com/2007/07/30/msdos_paternity_suit_resolved/

    The story of how Bill Gates came to acquire an operating system is well known. In 1980, Kildall’s Digital Research provided the operating system for a wide range of microcomputers, and was established as the industry standard. IBM had approached Microsoft, then a tiny software company in the Seattle area, to provide a BASIC run-time for its first micro, the IBM PC. Gates offered to provide IBM an operating system too, even though he didn’t have one at the time. This required a hasty purchase.

    Microsoft turned to Tim Paterson, whose garage operation Seattle Computer Products was selling a CP/M clone called 86-DOS. This had been developed under the code name QDOS (for “quick and dirty operating system”), and SCP sold it alongside an add-in CPU card. Microsoft turned this into the hugely successful DOS franchise.

    (The oft-told story of Kildall spurning IBM to fly his plane is deeply misleading. It was IBM’s distribution and pricing of CP/M, which in the end was one of three operating systems offered with the first IBM PC, that ensured MS-DOS captured the market.)

    Alternatively and somewhat contradictorily

    https://www.techopedia.com/2/31154/software/cpm-the-story-of-the-os-that-almost-succeeded-over-windows

    The growing success of personal computers made IBM hungry for a piece of the action in 1980. The company decided to get into the market with its own PC. Big Blue usually designed entire computers by themselves, but figured that it would be too late with the company’s lumbering internal processes.

    The company decided to do something completely unheard of for IBM. It would use off-the-shelf components and integrate them into a complete system.

    CP/M was the obvious choice for the operating system, given how popular it was and how easy it was to port to other systems.

    IBM initially approached Microsoft for CP/M, apparently thinking that they could license CP/M since they made the Apple II card. To its credit, Microsoft pointed IBM’s execs toward DRI [the company owning CP/M] down in California.

    What happened next has been subject to endless speculation and an urban legend in the tech industry.

    On the day when IBM showed up to negotiate with DRI, Kildall was delivering some documentation to a client using his private plane, leaving Dorothy and the company’s lawyers to hash out the deal. DRI apparently got stuck on the nondisclosure agreement after Kildall returned later in the day, and ultimately the deal came to nothing.

    Desperate for an operating system, IBM turned to Microsoft. They found a CP/M clone written by a friend of Bill Gates, Tim Paterson of Seattle Computer Products and the designer of the SoftCard, dubbed QDOS, or “Quick and Dirty Operating System.” Microsoft licensed this to IBM so it would be ready in time.

    Microsoft polished it and offered it to IBM as PC-DOS. The company convinced IBM to let them keep the rights to the operating system to license to other computer makers. IBM, confident that no one would clone the BIOS, the one piece of proprietary technology in the PC, agreed. (Since the computer you’re reading this on likely wasn’t made by IBM, it’s obvious how that turned out.)

    Gary Kildall heard about the deal and threatened to sue IBM if it released PC-DOS. A deal was worked out where IBM would offer both systems, but IBM sold PC-DOS for \$40, but CP/M-86, the PC version, was \$240. It was hard to justify paying a higher price for what amounted to the same thing, and most people chose DOS. Most CP/M applications, such as the WordStar word processing system, were ported over to MS-DOS.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    @El Dato

    I see Kildalls a lot. They are greedy and short sighted and lack the vision thing. They assume that their market is small and they turn that into a self fulfilling prophecy by overpricing their product. They look at the math and say, I'm selling 10,000 units of this product/ year so I need to price it as $240 to cover my overhead and make enough profit to make the payments on my plane, boat, house, alimony, etc. If you tell them that if they priced it at $40 instead of $240 they'd sell a million, they don't believe you. In any case, in between is a vast chasm where you are still selling only 10,000 units at $40 and you won't be able to even make your payroll let alone the boat payments. So they stick at $240 and not a penny less.

    The Chinese, like Gates, think long term and understand that market share is everything. They introduce products at cost or even below cost in order to gain market share. Maybe to hit that price point you have to cut a few corners on quality - that's OK because people like cheap more than they care about quality. 80% of the quality for 1/3 the price is a winning formula. The Chinese that figure once they have put all of their competitors out of business there will be plenty of time and opportunity to jack up the prices later and Gates proved that they are right.

    Replies: @Jonathan Mason

  32. Uber’s Travis Kalanick hyped…over \$10 billion…disrupt…

    For better or worse, Uber did disrupt the taxi business.

    Kalanick is bad because he said sexist things and maintained a non-nurturing workplace.

  33. I can’t believe that Buddy Fletcher is as poor as he claims to be. He must have money stashed away overseas.

  34. Pao’s “income has averaged more than \$2,000,000 per year for the past three years,” he said.

    Pao, who is now the CEO of her own diversity nonprofit

    Hmm.

    • Replies: @El Dato
    @International Jew

    Technically, do nonprofits have CEOs? Don't they just need a Chief Nonprofiteer?

    Replies: @Jack D

  35. @Jack D
    @TGGP

    I disagree with Andrew. Holmes didn't start out to be a fraudster. If that was her plan, she would have just funneled all the money to a Cayman Islands bank account, but instead she spent most of it on attempts to build a working product. Her plan was "fake it 'till you make it".

    So Gates is sympathetic because that was his plan too - when IBM called him up and ask him if he had an operating system for a PC, he lied and told them "sure" and then he went out real quick and bought one from someone. But his plan succeeded and hers failed and that's the tragic part.

    But trying and failing is not a crime. It's the Watergate story - the real crime is the coverup. When her machine didn't work, she didn't own up to failure, she just starting lying and faking results. And not lying about how soon your taxi was coming but about things that affected people's health.

    Replies: @epebble, @James J O'Meara, @Hypnotoad666, @El Dato, @International Jew, @NOTA

    So Gates is sympathetic because that was his plan too – when IBM called him up and ask him if he had an operating system for a PC, he lied and told them “sure” and then he went out real quick and bought one from someone.

    Not really. He still had to write the device driver for IBM’s floppy disk, and integrate that with the parts he wanted to keep. Gates’ contribution was by no means trivial. But neither was it speculative or in any way pie-in-the-sky; writing a device driver was (and is) pretty standard stuff.

    Most new software products are like that; they build on a whole lot of existing code.

    Today, instead of buying something, Gates would have started with Linux and tweeked that. That’s the origin of a lot of things now, like Riverbed, VMware, and Android.

    • Replies: @El Dato
    @International Jew


    Gates would have started with Linux and tweeked that.
     
    Not being above using the stuff that he derides as "Communism" when it cut into his fat bottom line? Yes, he would.

    Remember when Microsoft had its "Unix is the future" phase back in the 80s:

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

    In the mid-to-late 1980s, Xenix was the most common Unix variant, measured according to the number of machines on which it was installed.

    AT&T started selling System V however, after the breakup of the Bell System. Microsoft, believing that it could not compete with UNIX's developer, decided to abandon XENIX. The decision was not immediately transparent, which led to the term vaporware. It agreed with IBM to develop OS/2, and the XENIX team (together with the best MS-DOS developers)[citation needed] was assigned to that project.

     

    But Microsoft is a wolf. When they could stab IBM in the back on the OS/2 project by rigging Windows to do multitasking, they did.

    Replies: @Stan Adams

  36. @International Jew

    Pao’s “income has averaged more than $2,000,000 per year for the past three years,” he said.
    ...
    Pao, who is now the CEO of her own diversity nonprofit
     
    Hmm.

    Replies: @El Dato

    Technically, do nonprofits have CEOs? Don’t they just need a Chief Nonprofiteer?

    • Replies: @Jack D
    @El Dato

    Yes, they do and often that's why the non-profit is non-profit. If they weren't paying out rich salaries to the CEO and other executives they would be making or accumulating money. When I found out that the CEO of my local PBS station makes over $1 million/year I stopped giving to them. There they are begging for pennies on the radio from retirees on Social Security and this guy makes a million bucks? Have they no shame?

    There are no standards in the non-profit business as to how much of the money that you raise has to actually be devoted to charitable activities as opposed to fund raising or paying executive salaries. In the worst cases - e.g. those calls you get from the "Policeman's Pension Fund" (as if cops nowadays didn't already get generous taxpayer funded pensions - I gave at the office) it's a complete (but yet legal) scam and not more than a tiny nominal amount actually gets used for the stated mission. As long as you accurately disclose where the money goes it's legal.

    There are organizations that rate charities but these can be scammed also. Let's say that a charity raises $1 million cash over the phone (all of which gets used to pay salaries to the CEO and his family) and they raise another supposed $10 million by getting corporations to donate out of date food which the charity distributes in disaster areas. The $10M is exaggerated (the businesses get a tax deduction for their donations in the inflated amount) but when they do their forms, it shows that 90% of the funds that they have raised go to the charitable mission so they get top ratings.

    Replies: @International Jew, @Almost Missouri

  37. @International Jew
    @Jack D


    So Gates is sympathetic because that was his plan too – when IBM called him up and ask him if he had an operating system for a PC, he lied and told them “sure” and then he went out real quick and bought one from someone.
     
    Not really. He still had to write the device driver for IBM's floppy disk, and integrate that with the parts he wanted to keep. Gates' contribution was by no means trivial. But neither was it speculative or in any way pie-in-the-sky; writing a device driver was (and is) pretty standard stuff.

    Most new software products are like that; they build on a whole lot of existing code.

    Today, instead of buying something, Gates would have started with Linux and tweeked that. That's the origin of a lot of things now, like Riverbed, VMware, and Android.

    Replies: @El Dato

    Gates would have started with Linux and tweeked that.

    Not being above using the stuff that he derides as “Communism” when it cut into his fat bottom line? Yes, he would.

    Remember when Microsoft had its “Unix is the future” phase back in the 80s:

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

    In the mid-to-late 1980s, Xenix was the most common Unix variant, measured according to the number of machines on which it was installed.

    AT&T started selling System V however, after the breakup of the Bell System. Microsoft, believing that it could not compete with UNIX’s developer, decided to abandon XENIX. The decision was not immediately transparent, which led to the term vaporware. It agreed with IBM to develop OS/2, and the XENIX team (together with the best MS-DOS developers)[citation needed] was assigned to that project.

    But Microsoft is a wolf. When they could stab IBM in the back on the OS/2 project by rigging Windows to do multitasking, they did.

    • Replies: @Stan Adams
    @El Dato


    When they could stab IBM in the back on the OS/2 project by rigging Windows to do multitasking, they did.
     
    Microsoft stabbed IBM in the back, but IBM slashed its own wrists on more than one occasion.
  38. By the way, Ms. Pao, how is your gay black husband doing with the lawsuits against him alleging financial finagling? Excuse me, or perhaps your gay black ex-husband?

    You can literally hear Steve walking around the chair in his jackboots and riding pants.

    Ach!

  39. Questionable, unethical, even dangerous behavior has run rampant in the male-dominated world of tech start-ups.

    Cf. 2020 election.

    diversity nonprofit

    That’s redundant.

  40. Interestingly, Holmes got little investment from Silicon Valley figures: Larry Ellison is the only one I can think of. Actual venture capitalists shied away from her company.

    Largely correct, but there was one SV VC who got in early, Tim Draper. I’m told the rest were interested but that when they asked for more details on the testing equipment, they were told it was proprietary and would not be disclosed, so they told her to go kick sand.

    • Replies: @Unladen Swallow
    @Bumpkin

    There is even an explanation for Tim Draper, he was a family friend of Holmes' dad, and had known Elizabeth Holmes from when she was a kid, Draper was really the only VC in the valley to give her money. None of the other major firms did, and none of the smaller ones specializing in biotech gave her any money either, that's why she was relying on non-tech oriented rich people to finance her company.

  41. @Mr. Anon

    Elizabeth Holmes followed the Silicon Valley playbook to a T. She was focused and ambitious. She had a compelling vision to help humanity with technology for blood tests, and her ambition, she said, was driven by a personal fear of needles. She fit the pattern of the young, brilliant college dropout, even dressing like Steve Jobs.
     
    And after all, that's what really makes you smart and capable - wearing a turtleneck.

    It's remarkable how shallow and stupid so many of the "elites" are. Or course, Ellen Pao isn't in the top rank of said elite. She's just a third-rate grifter. Ugly inside and out.

    Replies: @Jack D, @James J O'Meara, @El Dato, @Muggles

    It is really a weird passage. If it is not tongue-in-cheek it seems to imply that faking it and basically playacting a composite of elements stitched together from “success stories” is supposed to be per se the enabler of success, overriding reality.

    Cargo cultism. Well it is 2021.

    • Replies: @Forbes
    @El Dato

    That the passage is not written as parody informs us of the shallowness of Pao. It's also a clue why Pao washed out at Kleiner Perkins.

    I wonder who greenlighted a "defense" of Holmes while her criminal trial is underway, written by Pao, who herself lost a suit against a SV powerhouse. The axe-to-grind conflict stands out like a sore thumb.

    , @J.Ross
    @El Dato

    I think you have it, this is a kind of Freudian slip, good for our entire zero accomplishment zero punishment maximum payout elite. She apparently missed that the reason the image of a Silicon Valley genius wears crummy clothes and slouches in his chair is because he has skills nobody else can replace (or, largely, understand), so nobody dares to tell him about neckties. The reason we are having so many problems right now is they're all frauds.

    Charles Murray has an anecdote in the excellent Curmudgeon's Guide where he had just gotten a gig at a think tank as a young scholar. One weekend he realized he had left something in the office, so he dashed in quickly wearing streetclothes. The elevator opens and one of the senior fellows wearing normal business attire sees Charles. He doesn't chew Charles out, he doesn't scowl, but he does deliver a certain look. Murray dressed properly from then on even if he was just stopping in.
    Now imagine giving Steve Jobs that look in 1983.

    Replies: @Steve Sailer

  42. @HammerJack
    @Jack D


    A noninvasive test that detects pancreatic cancer (ALL cancers) at an early stage when it is still treatable.
     
    Modern bio-tech is nearly there on that one!
    Here's a photo of the prototype:


    https://i.ibb.co/z23hJ4s/9039e058cd13809fcfb91f6ac8d055d7.jpg

    Replies: @Pharaoh

    Modern bio-tech is nearly there on that one!
    Here’s a photo of the prototype:

    The sniffing dog could be superfluous soon. Here’s the real prototype for the future, and it’s inventor Oshiorenoya Agabi:

    More info:

    https://thespoon.tech/konikus-synthetic-sniffer-identifies-smells-just-dont-call-it-a-digital-nose/

    Koniku is using actual protein molecules to detect different compounds that objects (such as ripening strawberries) emit. “The cells [in the Konikore] are genetically modified to create sensors that would exist in your nose,” Agabi said. “We are not mimicking olfaction, we are using the same olfaction that exists in the nose of a dog.”

    Koniku currently has a library of more than 4,000 compounds that it can identify, which the company will ratchet up to hundreds of thousands “soon” according to Agabi.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    @Pharaoh

    Sniff Dogg.

  43. @HammerJack

    sexist to hold her accountable for alleged serious wrongdoing and not hold an array of men accountable for reports of wrongdoing
     

    Right on sister! It's about time we started holding men responsible for reports of wrongdoing! Take prisons, for example. Something like 95% of the people incarcerated in prisons are women, right? Hold on, someone's handing me a note.

    Replies: @Bridgeport_IPA

    Somehow, I couldn’t help but hear Norm Macdonald reading that last line: “Hold the phone! Turns out, according to this note I’ve been handed…”

  44. @Anon

    it emerged that he had been insolvent for years and had misspent investors’ money, including $8 million to produce “Violet & Daisy,” a film directed by his Oscar-winning writer brother.
     
    A black in charge will very soon be entangled in this sort of corrupt self-dealing and nepotism.


    Pao, who is now the CEO of her own diversity nonprofit, Project Include, ...
     
    Project Includes only non-founder Board of Directors member is Cedric Brown, who Pao seems to be auditioning for the role of Mr. Pao II:

    Having been involved in tech industry philanthropy for nearly 20 years and, as one of the earliest employees of the Kapor Center for Social Impact, he’d helped enable a vibrant, vocal approach to diversity and inclusion to emerge....

    Originally from Winston-Salem, North Carolina, he trained as an educator and worked in schools. His family background and identity as a Black gay man shaped his passion for helping people gain social mobility. But after arriving in California for graduate school at Stanford ....


    Eventually he ended up shepherding more than $70 million of investments in people, communities and companies, and seeing what a difference businesses can make in changing lives and attitudes.
     
    Her nonprofit "uses data and advocacy to accelerate diversity and inclusion solutions in the tech industry." "The non-profit group plans to provide recommendations and data to early and mid-stage startups in order to accelerate diversity and inclusion solutions in the tech industry."

    The 2018 Form 990 for the non-profit lists a consulting payment of $135,229 to Pao for "data analysis, social media/content writing and editing, program management, etc." The entire income for the non-profit was only $306,070. I wonder what her ex-husband's claim that she's getting $2 million a year is based on? Does she have other consulting income, or is that figure just standard divorce bullshit? She's listed with some speakers bureaus, but I imangine that income stream died with Covid.

    All-in-all, the non-profit route seems like a nice way to get yourself a three-digit income. I've noticed that a lot of black women go this route. You don't have a boss and you get to go around complaining and bitching about the lack of diversity for a living.

    Replies: @Almost Missouri, @LP5

    Thanks for looking up the 990 so I don’t have to.

    I wonder what her ex-husband’s claim that she’s getting \$2 million a year is based on? Does she have other consulting income, or is that figure just standard divorce bullshit?

    Maybe she’s got passive income from investments, but more likely her ex just chose a year when she exercised some stock options or sold a house or something and implies that is ongoing revenue. The last line of the article says the court records are unsealed so presumably this could be looked up, if only at the courthouse, but I can’t work up enough interest to check.

    The real surprise to me is that the courts have apparently awarded custody of their daughters (poor kid! product of a mating grift) to the father, particularly one “living in his car”. Usually that only happens if the mother is egregiously unfit, and even then, has any court ever awarded custody to car-dwelling father? So either Pao was so obviously hyper-egregiously unfit that even the slavishly pro-fem California courts couldn’t deny it, or being gay and black trumps being female and Asian in the new intersectionality sweepstakes of California jurisprudence.

    P.S. I presume by “three-digit income” you mean like a three-digit-k income.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    @Almost Missouri

    BTW, that Post article was from 2019, so I don't know what the situation is now. But if you read it closely, nowhere does it say that Buddy has sole custody of the kid. Also if he had custody he would be asking for child support and not spousal support. I assume it's some sort of shared custody. BTW, it is daughter singular and not more than 1 child.

    I've never seen any pictures of this kid. I thought that Buddy played for the other team, so is this kid like Michael Jackson's children, where fatherhood did not involve actually having, y' know, intercourse with a member of the opposite sex?

    Witnesses lie all the time and court pleadings (as distinct from sworn testimony) are especially filled with exaggeration, but standards in divorce proceedings are so low as to be practically nonexistent. I think the judges there just assume that both sides are going to outrageously lie and grossly exaggerate and it's their job to figure out which side is lying slightly less than the other side. Not only is perjury not punished, it's expected. The party seeking support claims that they are approaching death by starvation and the other side claims that they are living a life of decadent luxury and bathe nightly in a tub of champagne. If one side did not lie to counter the other side's lies, they would be handicapped. Most judges in civil courts would not put up with such obvious bald faced lying by the parties and their counsel, but in divorce courts it's entirely expected and considered to be normal. So anything that you read in a divorce pleading has to be taken with more than a grain of salt.

    Elsewhere it says that Buddy now (2019) lives in a 6 bedroom house so the "living in his car" thing is bullshit. Maybe he slept in his car one night while his bed was on the moving truck or something like that and this tiny bubble of truth gets inflated until it is the size of a Macy's Thanksgiving Day balloon.

    Replies: @Almost Missouri

  45. Though never charged with crimes, WeWork’s Adam Neumann and Uber’s Travis Kalanick hyped their way…

    Whoa! Cool it the antisemitism there Ellen!

  46. @epebble
    @Jack D

    It’s the Watergate story – the real crime is the coverup.


    Breaking in of the Democratic National Committee headquarters.

    Burglarizing the Democratic National Committee's (DNC) headquarters to photograph campaign documents and install listening devices in telephones.

    Wiretapping and monitoring the telephone conversations.

     
    are all routine political operations of the 1972 era?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watergate_scandal#/media/File:Government_Exhibit_133,_Chapstick_Tubes_with_Hidden_Microphones_-_NARA_-_304967.tif

    Replies: @Almost Missouri, @Forbes, @Alden

    Ah, I see you are not familiar with our Democrat Party, who have weaponized the entire deep state, including the spy and law enforcement agencies, against their political opponents, which they now define as approximately half of the national population.

  47. It’s too bad we don’t have debtor’s prison anymore.

    • Disagree: El Dato
  48. @George Taylor

    Pao, who is now the CEO of her own diversity nonprofit, Project Include
     
    I wonder if Ms. Pao is attempting to follow in the footsteps of another ISteve content provider; Morris Dees founder of the Southern Poverty Law Center.

    Replies: @The Anti-Gnostic, @Alden

    Is there a single non-profit left out there that isn’t pure rent-seeking? Sure is amazing how many people can make a good living not working for a profit.

    • Agree: Seneca44
    • Disagree: Corvinus
  49. @James J O'Meara
    @Jack D

    " If I didn’t have to be constrained by the limits of what is physically possible and feasible within the limits of technology, I could give you a trillion $ idea every day for a year and not run out."

    Like that moron Henry Ford, three companies run into bankruptcy, now he wants to make a car he can sell for $300! AND pay his workers (a bunch of monkeys) 10x the going wage! Good day to you, sir!

    Replies: @notsaying, @Jack D, @mmack, @NOTA

    Did Ford show his backers a car with an Olds engine and claim that he made it (because his engines didn’t really work)? That’s what Holmes did.

    Did Ford in fact go on and make millions of car? Holmes never made a single working product.

  50. Hey Steve, go find Maureen Dowd’s piece on Holmes. Dowd roasted Holmes on the whole charade, the black turtlenecks, wannabe-SteveJobs, the hiding behind sexism, her risky play in the medical field where she could have killed someone and whatnot. Whole lotta whatnot. I’m assuming the op-ed didn’t take from Dowd. I was surprised to see them gang up on poor Liz. Even if she IS a crook.

    • Replies: @res
    @Jim Christian

    This one?
    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/26/opinion/sunday/grifters-gone-wild.html

    Replies: @Jim Christian

  51. @Anon

    it emerged that he had been insolvent for years and had misspent investors’ money, including $8 million to produce “Violet & Daisy,” a film directed by his Oscar-winning writer brother.
     
    A black in charge will very soon be entangled in this sort of corrupt self-dealing and nepotism.


    Pao, who is now the CEO of her own diversity nonprofit, Project Include, ...
     
    Project Includes only non-founder Board of Directors member is Cedric Brown, who Pao seems to be auditioning for the role of Mr. Pao II:

    Having been involved in tech industry philanthropy for nearly 20 years and, as one of the earliest employees of the Kapor Center for Social Impact, he’d helped enable a vibrant, vocal approach to diversity and inclusion to emerge....

    Originally from Winston-Salem, North Carolina, he trained as an educator and worked in schools. His family background and identity as a Black gay man shaped his passion for helping people gain social mobility. But after arriving in California for graduate school at Stanford ....


    Eventually he ended up shepherding more than $70 million of investments in people, communities and companies, and seeing what a difference businesses can make in changing lives and attitudes.
     
    Her nonprofit "uses data and advocacy to accelerate diversity and inclusion solutions in the tech industry." "The non-profit group plans to provide recommendations and data to early and mid-stage startups in order to accelerate diversity and inclusion solutions in the tech industry."

    The 2018 Form 990 for the non-profit lists a consulting payment of $135,229 to Pao for "data analysis, social media/content writing and editing, program management, etc." The entire income for the non-profit was only $306,070. I wonder what her ex-husband's claim that she's getting $2 million a year is based on? Does she have other consulting income, or is that figure just standard divorce bullshit? She's listed with some speakers bureaus, but I imangine that income stream died with Covid.

    All-in-all, the non-profit route seems like a nice way to get yourself a three-digit income. I've noticed that a lot of black women go this route. You don't have a boss and you get to go around complaining and bitching about the lack of diversity for a living.

    Replies: @Almost Missouri, @LP5

    Her nonprofit “uses data and advocacy to accelerate diversity and inclusion solutions in the tech industry.”

    Pao has a knack for using diversity skills to redistribute money to herself, to be followed by the inevitable losses and lawsuits.

  52. Maybe because Ms. Holmes put herself in the medical care business despite not knowing much of anything about health.

    Holmes also wired MIC parasites into the Theranos BoD who also knew nothing about health. How much does former BoD member General “Mad Dog” Mattis know about biotechnology or any business outside of killing people?

    Happy to function as potted plants at the Board meetings for the fat fees they were paid, it is not surprising that the Warfare State hacks didn’t ask some obvious questions like, “How soon can you schedule a real-time demonstration of the platform for us that includes comparative same-sample testing against conventional technologies?”

    BTW, what is almost pathological about Holmes’ scam is that unlike business related software apps that can benignly die as vapor-ware when they market-fail, medical devices must undergo strict FDA scrutiny. I.e., there was no way the Theranos scam could not have been found out. That Holmes apparently believed that she could run the con to completion makes her almost delusional in that respect.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    @Neutral Observer

    Holmes hooked in the MIC guys because she thought that the Pentagon could be a big customer. Imagine an Army medic carrying a portable Edison machine (BTW what is up with naming your product for dead inventors - talk about stolen valor) in a backpack and giving finger prick blood tests in the field - the Army would have been very interested. And you could price such a device at some ridiculous defense contractor $300 toilet seat level - it wouldn't have to be competitive with the cost of conventional lab work.

    Holmes (at least at the beginning) in her ignorance really did not believe the naysayers who said that her machine was impossible. Her plan really was "fake it till you make it". If everything had gone the way she imagined, in the end the technical difficulties would have been overcome and eventually the device would have produced verifiable results that would have passed FDA scrutiny. The tales of the early days when she was faking the results on conventional machines would have become part of Silicon Valley lore instead of being the subject of Federal indictment and she would become the female Steve Jobs.

    It is said that a web of lies starts out as thin as a strand of spider's silk but eventually it becomes as stout as a ship's rope. Holmes's problem was that "making it" was always impossible - she could have gone thru a billion $ of VC money or $10 billion and STILL have not made it. At some point in your vaporware venture you pull the plug and send everyone home and auction off the office furniture and you tell the VC guys that sorry, your money is gone (they're big boys - they can take it because they know that one investment in the next Facebook can pay for 1,000 vaporwares so they keep betting). But Holmes just kept on doubling down on the lies until she was in too deep to get out.

    Replies: @Almost Missouri

  53. @Almost Missouri
    @Anon

    Thanks for looking up the 990 so I don't have to.


    I wonder what her ex-husband’s claim that she’s getting $2 million a year is based on? Does she have other consulting income, or is that figure just standard divorce bullshit?
     
    Maybe she's got passive income from investments, but more likely her ex just chose a year when she exercised some stock options or sold a house or something and implies that is ongoing revenue. The last line of the article says the court records are unsealed so presumably this could be looked up, if only at the courthouse, but I can't work up enough interest to check.

    The real surprise to me is that the courts have apparently awarded custody of their daughters (poor kid! product of a mating grift) to the father, particularly one "living in his car". Usually that only happens if the mother is egregiously unfit, and even then, has any court ever awarded custody to car-dwelling father? So either Pao was so obviously hyper-egregiously unfit that even the slavishly pro-fem California courts couldn't deny it, or being gay and black trumps being female and Asian in the new intersectionality sweepstakes of California jurisprudence.

    P.S. I presume by "three-digit income" you mean like a three-digit-k income.

    Replies: @Jack D

    BTW, that Post article was from 2019, so I don’t know what the situation is now. But if you read it closely, nowhere does it say that Buddy has sole custody of the kid. Also if he had custody he would be asking for child support and not spousal support. I assume it’s some sort of shared custody. BTW, it is daughter singular and not more than 1 child.

    I’ve never seen any pictures of this kid. I thought that Buddy played for the other team, so is this kid like Michael Jackson’s children, where fatherhood did not involve actually having, y’ know, intercourse with a member of the opposite sex?

    Witnesses lie all the time and court pleadings (as distinct from sworn testimony) are especially filled with exaggeration, but standards in divorce proceedings are so low as to be practically nonexistent. I think the judges there just assume that both sides are going to outrageously lie and grossly exaggerate and it’s their job to figure out which side is lying slightly less than the other side. Not only is perjury not punished, it’s expected. The party seeking support claims that they are approaching death by starvation and the other side claims that they are living a life of decadent luxury and bathe nightly in a tub of champagne. If one side did not lie to counter the other side’s lies, they would be handicapped. Most judges in civil courts would not put up with such obvious bald faced lying by the parties and their counsel, but in divorce courts it’s entirely expected and considered to be normal. So anything that you read in a divorce pleading has to be taken with more than a grain of salt.

    Elsewhere it says that Buddy now (2019) lives in a 6 bedroom house so the “living in his car” thing is bullshit. Maybe he slept in his car one night while his bed was on the moving truck or something like that and this tiny bubble of truth gets inflated until it is the size of a Macy’s Thanksgiving Day balloon.

    • Thanks: Achmed E. Newman
    • Replies: @Almost Missouri
    @Jack D


    nowhere does it say that Buddy has sole custody of the kid. Also if he had custody he would be asking for child support and not spousal support.
     
    Good point, but since child support is usually determined by a fairly cut-and-dried formula, maybe that was already disposed of so there was no point in Bubby paying billable hours to get that adjusted whereas spousal support is more freeform.

    it is daughter singular
     
    Yeah, that was a typo by me.

    I’ve never seen any pictures of this kid. I thought that Buddy played for the other team, so is this kid like Michael Jackson’s children
     
    Good question.

    Not only is perjury not punished, it’s expected.
     
    Friend of mine got dinged for "perjury" in divorce court. Irony was that it was his wife's attorney who was lying, but the judge apparently decided that in an attorney-versus-civilian dispute, the attorney wins. Well, I guess the judge knew he'd work with the attorney in the future but likely never see the civilian again.
  54. @El Dato
    @International Jew

    Technically, do nonprofits have CEOs? Don't they just need a Chief Nonprofiteer?

    Replies: @Jack D

    Yes, they do and often that’s why the non-profit is non-profit. If they weren’t paying out rich salaries to the CEO and other executives they would be making or accumulating money. When I found out that the CEO of my local PBS station makes over \$1 million/year I stopped giving to them. There they are begging for pennies on the radio from retirees on Social Security and this guy makes a million bucks? Have they no shame?

    There are no standards in the non-profit business as to how much of the money that you raise has to actually be devoted to charitable activities as opposed to fund raising or paying executive salaries. In the worst cases – e.g. those calls you get from the “Policeman’s Pension Fund” (as if cops nowadays didn’t already get generous taxpayer funded pensions – I gave at the office) it’s a complete (but yet legal) scam and not more than a tiny nominal amount actually gets used for the stated mission. As long as you accurately disclose where the money goes it’s legal.

    There are organizations that rate charities but these can be scammed also. Let’s say that a charity raises \$1 million cash over the phone (all of which gets used to pay salaries to the CEO and his family) and they raise another supposed \$10 million by getting corporations to donate out of date food which the charity distributes in disaster areas. The \$10M is exaggerated (the businesses get a tax deduction for their donations in the inflated amount) but when they do their forms, it shows that 90% of the funds that they have raised go to the charitable mission so they get top ratings.

    • Replies: @International Jew
    @Jack D


    Have they no shame?
     
    No.
    , @Almost Missouri
    @Jack D


    There are no standards in the non-profit business as to how much of the money that you raise has to actually be devoted to charitable activities as opposed to fund raising or paying executive salaries.
     
    I was at a budget meeting for the fundraising department of a nonprofit where I worked. The fundraiser's presentation was all about about how much money they had raised for the organization and all the glossy ways they had done it. At the end of the presentation, they asked if there were any questions. No one raised any. Since the fundraiser had never said what their budget was (in a "budget meeting"), I raised my hand and asked that.

    "Oo," said the fundraiser looking surprised by the question as she hurriedly riffled through her papers, "aaaah ... that would be $x." [where x is a number about one third more than the amount of money they had just spent the meeting bragging about having raised]

    I looked around the room to see if anyone else understood the significance of the juxtaposition of these two numbers, but everyone was just nodding and smiling at the fundraiser.

    That was the last budget meeting I ever went to there. I left shortly afterwards.

    Incidentally, before this meeting, I had noticed that despite the organization's hairshirted reputation (in some ways deserved), that the the admin building's parking lot had a some expensive hardware in it. In every case where I could connect the pricey wheels to an owner, it always turned out to be someone in the fundraising department. Well, that mystery was solved anyway.

    The really sad part for that charity was that most of their donations came from long-established donors who would send a check every year no matter what, so a monkey could have "raised" most of their donations any given year at zero cost. Instead they hired a bunch of pro grifters who took all their donation money plus part of their operating funds, and bought fancy cars and whatnot before rotating out. Dumb. Dumb. Dumb. Sad. Dumb.

    Replies: @Jack D, @Anonymous, @LP5

  55. “Ms. Pao is a tech investor and chief executive of Project Include…”

    As someone who has founded several software companies, an unaffiliated “tech investor” (with no mention of specific early-stage investments) is the SV analog of “aspiring music producer.”

    Also, if Tom Wolfe had made up the Ellen and Buddy story, he would be accused of being dull-witted and lazy. It is one of the funniest things I’ve ever read.

  56. Silicon Valley VC’s gave only 0.34 percent of their outlays to firms “headed by black women founders”, given how few black women major in any technical field combined with the fact that women are noticeably more risk averse in their careers than men, that seems like a lot more then I would have guessed. In fact I wonder if some of those women were serving as fronts, it’s pretty hilarious that Ellen Pao thinks that is some kind of devastating data point proving discrimination, maybe she should read Murray’s new book.

    • Agree: Mr Mox
  57. @El Dato
    @Mr. Anon

    It is really a weird passage. If it is not tongue-in-cheek it seems to imply that faking it and basically playacting a composite of elements stitched together from "success stories" is supposed to be per se the enabler of success, overriding reality.

    Cargo cultism. Well it is 2021.

    Replies: @Forbes, @J.Ross

    That the passage is not written as parody informs us of the shallowness of Pao. It’s also a clue why Pao washed out at Kleiner Perkins.

    I wonder who greenlighted a “defense” of Holmes while her criminal trial is underway, written by Pao, who herself lost a suit against a SV powerhouse. The axe-to-grind conflict stands out like a sore thumb.

  58. @El Dato
    @Jack D


    So Gates is sympathetic because that was his plan too – when IBM called him up and ask him if he had an operating system for a PC, he lied and told them “sure” and then he went out real quick and bought one from someone. But his plan succeeded and hers failed and that’s the tragic part.
     
    That's not tragic "tragic".

    Gates knew delivering was physically possible and also knew of the (somewhat awkwardly) re-engineered (some say "ripped-off") CP/M named QDOS so he could deliver on his contract in a usual business "sharp practice" approach.

    That's the same approach you take when your prospective employer asks you whether you know about and have experience with latest fad "technology" that will be completely forgotten & buried in 2 years then you say "sure" then you go home and take a Coursera course.

    If Liz had sold her stuff as a "high-risk research effort that is in its infancy and might go nowhere" there wouldn't have been a problem.

    https://www.theregister.com/2007/07/30/msdos_paternity_suit_resolved/


    The story of how Bill Gates came to acquire an operating system is well known. In 1980, Kildall's Digital Research provided the operating system for a wide range of microcomputers, and was established as the industry standard. IBM had approached Microsoft, then a tiny software company in the Seattle area, to provide a BASIC run-time for its first micro, the IBM PC. Gates offered to provide IBM an operating system too, even though he didn't have one at the time. This required a hasty purchase.

    Microsoft turned to Tim Paterson, whose garage operation Seattle Computer Products was selling a CP/M clone called 86-DOS. This had been developed under the code name QDOS (for "quick and dirty operating system"), and SCP sold it alongside an add-in CPU card. Microsoft turned this into the hugely successful DOS franchise.

    (The oft-told story of Kildall spurning IBM to fly his plane is deeply misleading. It was IBM's distribution and pricing of CP/M, which in the end was one of three operating systems offered with the first IBM PC, that ensured MS-DOS captured the market.)

     

    Alternatively and somewhat contradictorily

    https://www.techopedia.com/2/31154/software/cpm-the-story-of-the-os-that-almost-succeeded-over-windows


    The growing success of personal computers made IBM hungry for a piece of the action in 1980. The company decided to get into the market with its own PC. Big Blue usually designed entire computers by themselves, but figured that it would be too late with the company’s lumbering internal processes.

    The company decided to do something completely unheard of for IBM. It would use off-the-shelf components and integrate them into a complete system.

    CP/M was the obvious choice for the operating system, given how popular it was and how easy it was to port to other systems.

    IBM initially approached Microsoft for CP/M, apparently thinking that they could license CP/M since they made the Apple II card. To its credit, Microsoft pointed IBM’s execs toward DRI [the company owning CP/M] down in California.

    What happened next has been subject to endless speculation and an urban legend in the tech industry.

    On the day when IBM showed up to negotiate with DRI, Kildall was delivering some documentation to a client using his private plane, leaving Dorothy and the company’s lawyers to hash out the deal. DRI apparently got stuck on the nondisclosure agreement after Kildall returned later in the day, and ultimately the deal came to nothing.

    Desperate for an operating system, IBM turned to Microsoft. They found a CP/M clone written by a friend of Bill Gates, Tim Paterson of Seattle Computer Products and the designer of the SoftCard, dubbed QDOS, or "Quick and Dirty Operating System." Microsoft licensed this to IBM so it would be ready in time.

    Microsoft polished it and offered it to IBM as PC-DOS. The company convinced IBM to let them keep the rights to the operating system to license to other computer makers. IBM, confident that no one would clone the BIOS, the one piece of proprietary technology in the PC, agreed. (Since the computer you’re reading this on likely wasn’t made by IBM, it’s obvious how that turned out.)

    Gary Kildall heard about the deal and threatened to sue IBM if it released PC-DOS. A deal was worked out where IBM would offer both systems, but IBM sold PC-DOS for $40, but CP/M-86, the PC version, was $240. It was hard to justify paying a higher price for what amounted to the same thing, and most people chose DOS. Most CP/M applications, such as the WordStar word processing system, were ported over to MS-DOS.
     

    Replies: @Jack D

    I see Kildalls a lot. They are greedy and short sighted and lack the vision thing. They assume that their market is small and they turn that into a self fulfilling prophecy by overpricing their product. They look at the math and say, I’m selling 10,000 units of this product/ year so I need to price it as \$240 to cover my overhead and make enough profit to make the payments on my plane, boat, house, alimony, etc. If you tell them that if they priced it at \$40 instead of \$240 they’d sell a million, they don’t believe you. In any case, in between is a vast chasm where you are still selling only 10,000 units at \$40 and you won’t be able to even make your payroll let alone the boat payments. So they stick at \$240 and not a penny less.

    The Chinese, like Gates, think long term and understand that market share is everything. They introduce products at cost or even below cost in order to gain market share. Maybe to hit that price point you have to cut a few corners on quality – that’s OK because people like cheap more than they care about quality. 80% of the quality for 1/3 the price is a winning formula. The Chinese that figure once they have put all of their competitors out of business there will be plenty of time and opportunity to jack up the prices later and Gates proved that they are right.

    • Replies: @Jonathan Mason
    @Jack D

    80% of the quality for 1/3 the price is a winning formula.

    I don't know. Look at phone brands like Realme vs Redmi. I have a Realme, which cost me $130 and is an excellent phone--more than good enough for my needs, and I am using it as a modem for my desktop as I type this.

    Once they have cornered the market and put everyone else out of business, will they increase the price of their phones to $1000 like Apple?

    Replies: @Jack D

  59. @SaneClownPosse
    Lizzie Holmes dressed like Steve Jobs, because she was totally faking an illusion.
    Appearances were all she had.

    Replies: @Forbes

    Performative theatre–it’s all the rage these days. Just turn on your teevee and see the media circus staffed with all the clowns.

    The list is endless: Dr. Fauci, Gen. Milley, President Biden, not to mention all the talking heads…

  60. @El Dato
    @Mr. Anon

    It is really a weird passage. If it is not tongue-in-cheek it seems to imply that faking it and basically playacting a composite of elements stitched together from "success stories" is supposed to be per se the enabler of success, overriding reality.

    Cargo cultism. Well it is 2021.

    Replies: @Forbes, @J.Ross

    I think you have it, this is a kind of Freudian slip, good for our entire zero accomplishment zero punishment maximum payout elite. She apparently missed that the reason the image of a Silicon Valley genius wears crummy clothes and slouches in his chair is because he has skills nobody else can replace (or, largely, understand), so nobody dares to tell him about neckties. The reason we are having so many problems right now is they’re all frauds.

    [MORE]

    Charles Murray has an anecdote in the excellent Curmudgeon’s Guide where he had just gotten a gig at a think tank as a young scholar. One weekend he realized he had left something in the office, so he dashed in quickly wearing streetclothes. The elevator opens and one of the senior fellows wearing normal business attire sees Charles. He doesn’t chew Charles out, he doesn’t scowl, but he does deliver a certain look. Murray dressed properly from then on even if he was just stopping in.
    Now imagine giving Steve Jobs that look in 1983.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    @J.Ross

    Steve Jobs actually dressed well. After all, he had a superb eye for design. His ex-girlfriend Joan Baez tells a funny story about him telling he's found the perfect dress for her and taking her to the mall, and, yes, it is the perfect dress for her, but it's $2,700 and he's vamoosed to go buy himself some nice shirts. While she's famous, she's not terribly rich, not being a songwriter and being pretty charitable, so she doesn't pay for it herself.

    Replies: @J.Ross

  61. @Colin Wright
    '...Yet Ms. Holmes is also exceptional for the basic fact that she is a woman. Time and again, we see that the boys’ club that is the tech industry supports and protects its own — even when the costs are huge...'

    Wasn't the opposite demonstrated to some extent?

    Tech interviewers were more likely to hire a candidate if they were allowed to know that she was female than if they were limited to gender-neutral information?

    Replies: @J.Ross

    That and it prided itself on being an industry run by engineers, on not having any fat. Really the opposite of a club.

  62. @epebble
    @Jack D

    It’s the Watergate story – the real crime is the coverup.


    Breaking in of the Democratic National Committee headquarters.

    Burglarizing the Democratic National Committee's (DNC) headquarters to photograph campaign documents and install listening devices in telephones.

    Wiretapping and monitoring the telephone conversations.

     
    are all routine political operations of the 1972 era?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watergate_scandal#/media/File:Government_Exhibit_133,_Chapstick_Tubes_with_Hidden_Microphones_-_NARA_-_304967.tif

    Replies: @Almost Missouri, @Forbes, @Alden

    All because John Dean was “visiting” prostitutes, and he wanted to know if the DNC had the dirt on him. Kinda funny…

  63. @Jack D
    @El Dato

    Yes, they do and often that's why the non-profit is non-profit. If they weren't paying out rich salaries to the CEO and other executives they would be making or accumulating money. When I found out that the CEO of my local PBS station makes over $1 million/year I stopped giving to them. There they are begging for pennies on the radio from retirees on Social Security and this guy makes a million bucks? Have they no shame?

    There are no standards in the non-profit business as to how much of the money that you raise has to actually be devoted to charitable activities as opposed to fund raising or paying executive salaries. In the worst cases - e.g. those calls you get from the "Policeman's Pension Fund" (as if cops nowadays didn't already get generous taxpayer funded pensions - I gave at the office) it's a complete (but yet legal) scam and not more than a tiny nominal amount actually gets used for the stated mission. As long as you accurately disclose where the money goes it's legal.

    There are organizations that rate charities but these can be scammed also. Let's say that a charity raises $1 million cash over the phone (all of which gets used to pay salaries to the CEO and his family) and they raise another supposed $10 million by getting corporations to donate out of date food which the charity distributes in disaster areas. The $10M is exaggerated (the businesses get a tax deduction for their donations in the inflated amount) but when they do their forms, it shows that 90% of the funds that they have raised go to the charitable mission so they get top ratings.

    Replies: @International Jew, @Almost Missouri

    Have they no shame?

    No.

  64. @Neutral Observer

    Maybe because Ms. Holmes put herself in the medical care business despite not knowing much of anything about health.
     
    Holmes also wired MIC parasites into the Theranos BoD who also knew nothing about health. How much does former BoD member General "Mad Dog" Mattis know about biotechnology or any business outside of killing people?

    Happy to function as potted plants at the Board meetings for the fat fees they were paid, it is not surprising that the Warfare State hacks didn't ask some obvious questions like, "How soon can you schedule a real-time demonstration of the platform for us that includes comparative same-sample testing against conventional technologies?"

    BTW, what is almost pathological about Holmes' scam is that unlike business related software apps that can benignly die as vapor-ware when they market-fail, medical devices must undergo strict FDA scrutiny. I.e., there was no way the Theranos scam could not have been found out. That Holmes apparently believed that she could run the con to completion makes her almost delusional in that respect.

    Replies: @Jack D

    Holmes hooked in the MIC guys because she thought that the Pentagon could be a big customer. Imagine an Army medic carrying a portable Edison machine (BTW what is up with naming your product for dead inventors – talk about stolen valor) in a backpack and giving finger prick blood tests in the field – the Army would have been very interested. And you could price such a device at some ridiculous defense contractor \$300 toilet seat level – it wouldn’t have to be competitive with the cost of conventional lab work.

    Holmes (at least at the beginning) in her ignorance really did not believe the naysayers who said that her machine was impossible. Her plan really was “fake it till you make it”. If everything had gone the way she imagined, in the end the technical difficulties would have been overcome and eventually the device would have produced verifiable results that would have passed FDA scrutiny. The tales of the early days when she was faking the results on conventional machines would have become part of Silicon Valley lore instead of being the subject of Federal indictment and she would become the female Steve Jobs.

    It is said that a web of lies starts out as thin as a strand of spider’s silk but eventually it becomes as stout as a ship’s rope. Holmes’s problem was that “making it” was always impossible – she could have gone thru a billion \$ of VC money or \$10 billion and STILL have not made it. At some point in your vaporware venture you pull the plug and send everyone home and auction off the office furniture and you tell the VC guys that sorry, your money is gone (they’re big boys – they can take it because they know that one investment in the next Facebook can pay for 1,000 vaporwares so they keep betting). But Holmes just kept on doubling down on the lies until she was in too deep to get out.

    • Thanks: El Dato
    • Replies: @Almost Missouri
    @Jack D


    Holmes hooked in the MIC guys because she thought that the Pentagon could be a big customer. Imagine an Army medic carrying a portable Edison machine ... in a backpack and giving finger prick blood tests in the field – the Army would have been very interested
     
    I've heard this before, but I'm still a little baffled why this is supposed to be of any military use. Every GI's blood type is already on his dog tag, and as far as what is ailing him, it is either a bullet or shrapnel which do not differ in treatment anyway, and if he's lost blood, they're only going to be giving type-agnostic plasma in the field. But some poor private would be tasked with dragging the "Edison" machine through combat so that when Joe gets hit, they can prick his finger and tell him, "Never mind your sucking chest wound Joe, did you know you have an undiagnosed gluten allergy?"

    I think "monk" Mattis was just taken by the fact a 20-somehting blonde would invite a 67-year-old retiree to her board.

    (BTW what is up with naming your product for dead inventors – talk about stolen valor)
     
    Agreed.
  65. @James J O'Meara
    @Jack D

    " If I didn’t have to be constrained by the limits of what is physically possible and feasible within the limits of technology, I could give you a trillion $ idea every day for a year and not run out."

    Like that moron Henry Ford, three companies run into bankruptcy, now he wants to make a car he can sell for $300! AND pay his workers (a bunch of monkeys) 10x the going wage! Good day to you, sir!

    Replies: @notsaying, @Jack D, @mmack, @NOTA

    Other than the fact that:
    – Henry Ford built working prototypes of automobiles he could show investors
    – Henry Ford built racing cars that showcased his company’s technology to investors
    – Henry Ford’s second company became the Cadillac division of General Motors (Henry left, the company didn’t go broke)
    – Henry Ford’s third company has existed just shy of 120 years

    That’s a perfect analogy.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    @mmack

    Investors kept trying to get the young Henry Ford to concentrate on being an auto manufacturer, but up until age 40 or so, he was obsessed with designing and driving race cars.

    Replies: @mmack

  66. @George Taylor

    Pao, who is now the CEO of her own diversity nonprofit, Project Include
     
    I wonder if Ms. Pao is attempting to follow in the footsteps of another ISteve content provider; Morris Dees founder of the Southern Poverty Law Center.

    Replies: @The Anti-Gnostic, @Alden

    When I become dictator of America, all non profits will be abolished. Their vast funds will be used to set up a network of Whites only private schools. Curriculum dictated by me.
    As for the employees creators and executives of the non profits; put somewhere, something done to them that prevents them from doing further damage.

  67. @Jack D
    @Almost Missouri

    BTW, that Post article was from 2019, so I don't know what the situation is now. But if you read it closely, nowhere does it say that Buddy has sole custody of the kid. Also if he had custody he would be asking for child support and not spousal support. I assume it's some sort of shared custody. BTW, it is daughter singular and not more than 1 child.

    I've never seen any pictures of this kid. I thought that Buddy played for the other team, so is this kid like Michael Jackson's children, where fatherhood did not involve actually having, y' know, intercourse with a member of the opposite sex?

    Witnesses lie all the time and court pleadings (as distinct from sworn testimony) are especially filled with exaggeration, but standards in divorce proceedings are so low as to be practically nonexistent. I think the judges there just assume that both sides are going to outrageously lie and grossly exaggerate and it's their job to figure out which side is lying slightly less than the other side. Not only is perjury not punished, it's expected. The party seeking support claims that they are approaching death by starvation and the other side claims that they are living a life of decadent luxury and bathe nightly in a tub of champagne. If one side did not lie to counter the other side's lies, they would be handicapped. Most judges in civil courts would not put up with such obvious bald faced lying by the parties and their counsel, but in divorce courts it's entirely expected and considered to be normal. So anything that you read in a divorce pleading has to be taken with more than a grain of salt.

    Elsewhere it says that Buddy now (2019) lives in a 6 bedroom house so the "living in his car" thing is bullshit. Maybe he slept in his car one night while his bed was on the moving truck or something like that and this tiny bubble of truth gets inflated until it is the size of a Macy's Thanksgiving Day balloon.

    Replies: @Almost Missouri

    nowhere does it say that Buddy has sole custody of the kid. Also if he had custody he would be asking for child support and not spousal support.

    Good point, but since child support is usually determined by a fairly cut-and-dried formula, maybe that was already disposed of so there was no point in Bubby paying billable hours to get that adjusted whereas spousal support is more freeform.

    it is daughter singular

    Yeah, that was a typo by me.

    I’ve never seen any pictures of this kid. I thought that Buddy played for the other team, so is this kid like Michael Jackson’s children

    Good question.

    Not only is perjury not punished, it’s expected.

    Friend of mine got dinged for “perjury” in divorce court. Irony was that it was his wife’s attorney who was lying, but the judge apparently decided that in an attorney-versus-civilian dispute, the attorney wins. Well, I guess the judge knew he’d work with the attorney in the future but likely never see the civilian again.

  68. @epebble
    @Jack D

    It’s the Watergate story – the real crime is the coverup.


    Breaking in of the Democratic National Committee headquarters.

    Burglarizing the Democratic National Committee's (DNC) headquarters to photograph campaign documents and install listening devices in telephones.

    Wiretapping and monitoring the telephone conversations.

     
    are all routine political operations of the 1972 era?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watergate_scandal#/media/File:Government_Exhibit_133,_Chapstick_Tubes_with_Hidden_Microphones_-_NARA_-_304967.tif

    Replies: @Almost Missouri, @Forbes, @Alden

    DC was much much more blacker and more criminal in 1972 than it is now. The Watergate building is in DC, not the suburbs. At the time, breaking and entering and theft of papers wasn’t considered a serious crime in DC at all. That was the era in which the DC courts ruled that the DC police have no duty to respond to calls. Even for a breaking and entering burglary theft and rape of 3 White women by a gang of blacks. The women did manage to call 911. But the police never came. The women sued DCPD The court ruled the police had no duty to respond to a 911 call. The only murders that were solved were domestics in which the suspect was found holding the gun over the dead body.

    That was the era in which it was unsafe to walk 1 block from the White House and the Capitol building. B&E burglary theft of some papers were trivial in the context of DC murders and other felonies at the time.

    • Thanks: epebble
  69. @Jack D
    @El Dato

    Yes, they do and often that's why the non-profit is non-profit. If they weren't paying out rich salaries to the CEO and other executives they would be making or accumulating money. When I found out that the CEO of my local PBS station makes over $1 million/year I stopped giving to them. There they are begging for pennies on the radio from retirees on Social Security and this guy makes a million bucks? Have they no shame?

    There are no standards in the non-profit business as to how much of the money that you raise has to actually be devoted to charitable activities as opposed to fund raising or paying executive salaries. In the worst cases - e.g. those calls you get from the "Policeman's Pension Fund" (as if cops nowadays didn't already get generous taxpayer funded pensions - I gave at the office) it's a complete (but yet legal) scam and not more than a tiny nominal amount actually gets used for the stated mission. As long as you accurately disclose where the money goes it's legal.

    There are organizations that rate charities but these can be scammed also. Let's say that a charity raises $1 million cash over the phone (all of which gets used to pay salaries to the CEO and his family) and they raise another supposed $10 million by getting corporations to donate out of date food which the charity distributes in disaster areas. The $10M is exaggerated (the businesses get a tax deduction for their donations in the inflated amount) but when they do their forms, it shows that 90% of the funds that they have raised go to the charitable mission so they get top ratings.

    Replies: @International Jew, @Almost Missouri

    There are no standards in the non-profit business as to how much of the money that you raise has to actually be devoted to charitable activities as opposed to fund raising or paying executive salaries.

    I was at a budget meeting for the fundraising department of a nonprofit where I worked. The fundraiser’s presentation was all about about how much money they had raised for the organization and all the glossy ways they had done it. At the end of the presentation, they asked if there were any questions. No one raised any. Since the fundraiser had never said what their budget was (in a “budget meeting”), I raised my hand and asked that.

    “Oo,” said the fundraiser looking surprised by the question as she hurriedly riffled through her papers, “aaaah … that would be \$x.” [where x is a number about one third more than the amount of money they had just spent the meeting bragging about having raised]

    I looked around the room to see if anyone else understood the significance of the juxtaposition of these two numbers, but everyone was just nodding and smiling at the fundraiser.

    That was the last budget meeting I ever went to there. I left shortly afterwards.

    Incidentally, before this meeting, I had noticed that despite the organization’s hairshirted reputation (in some ways deserved), that the the admin building’s parking lot had a some expensive hardware in it. In every case where I could connect the pricey wheels to an owner, it always turned out to be someone in the fundraising department. Well, that mystery was solved anyway.

    The really sad part for that charity was that most of their donations came from long-established donors who would send a check every year no matter what, so a monkey could have “raised” most of their donations any given year at zero cost. Instead they hired a bunch of pro grifters who took all their donation money plus part of their operating funds, and bought fancy cars and whatnot before rotating out. Dumb. Dumb. Dumb. Sad. Dumb.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    @Almost Missouri

    Pournelle's iron law of bureaucracy: In any bureaucracy, the people devoted to the benefit of the bureaucracy itself always get in control and those dedicated to the goals that the bureaucracy is supposed to accomplish have less and less influence, and sometimes are eliminated entirely.

    I think Pournelle was being charitable (no pun intended). For "the benefit of the bureaucracy itself" I would say "lining their own wallets". Grifters are always more highly motivated than do-gooders and better at pulling the wool over their eyes than vice versa.

    , @Anonymous
    @Almost Missouri

    Incidentally, before this meeting, I had noticed that despite the organization’s hairshirted reputation (in some ways deserved),

    I've been watching the non-profit world from an adjacent field. In my experience there's two levels of employee. The top level is composed of competent, industrious, schmoozing types. They're the CEO, CFO and fundraisers and are compensated fairly well given they don't have actual deliverables The other level are mid level managers, support drones and others. This level is basically on the dole doing liberal busywork and are paid accordingly. There's a fair amount of resentment from the lower level towards the upper level. While the entire sector is heavily female, the upper tier seems to be even more so, and is much more White/Asian/upper class Hispanic than the proles.

    When there are budget shortfalls the lower tier gets their hours cut and less makework projects get funded.

    It's really amazing how much is spent on doing nothing when you start looking at all of these groups. Things like a $50,000 city grant to send out teenage youth during the summer to identify graffiti then have them paint it over. The local news rolls out a camera truck and has a heartwarming story, but in reality the city works crew could have done a job for a tenth of the cost.

    The far left doesn't like these groups either. Google 'non profit industrial complex' for their thought.

    Replies: @Almost Missouri

    , @LP5
    @Almost Missouri


    There are no standards in the non-profit business as to how much of the money that you raise has to actually be devoted to charitable activities as opposed to fund raising or paying executive salaries.
     
    There is a non-profit fundraising cottage industry that gets by because people don't ask questions.

    Here is one of my favorite instances:
    Non-profit applies for and gets a government grant for X.
    They want to raise another .5X.
    Grifter fundraiser consultant makes a slick presentation with obfuscation of fees.
    Said fees are based on 1.5X, even though X was essentially free and procured prior to Grifter input.
    Those fees total over 40% of the new funds, so a pretty sweet return.

    Where are the customer's yachts, or nice cars?
  70. @Almost Missouri
    @Jack D


    There are no standards in the non-profit business as to how much of the money that you raise has to actually be devoted to charitable activities as opposed to fund raising or paying executive salaries.
     
    I was at a budget meeting for the fundraising department of a nonprofit where I worked. The fundraiser's presentation was all about about how much money they had raised for the organization and all the glossy ways they had done it. At the end of the presentation, they asked if there were any questions. No one raised any. Since the fundraiser had never said what their budget was (in a "budget meeting"), I raised my hand and asked that.

    "Oo," said the fundraiser looking surprised by the question as she hurriedly riffled through her papers, "aaaah ... that would be $x." [where x is a number about one third more than the amount of money they had just spent the meeting bragging about having raised]

    I looked around the room to see if anyone else understood the significance of the juxtaposition of these two numbers, but everyone was just nodding and smiling at the fundraiser.

    That was the last budget meeting I ever went to there. I left shortly afterwards.

    Incidentally, before this meeting, I had noticed that despite the organization's hairshirted reputation (in some ways deserved), that the the admin building's parking lot had a some expensive hardware in it. In every case where I could connect the pricey wheels to an owner, it always turned out to be someone in the fundraising department. Well, that mystery was solved anyway.

    The really sad part for that charity was that most of their donations came from long-established donors who would send a check every year no matter what, so a monkey could have "raised" most of their donations any given year at zero cost. Instead they hired a bunch of pro grifters who took all their donation money plus part of their operating funds, and bought fancy cars and whatnot before rotating out. Dumb. Dumb. Dumb. Sad. Dumb.

    Replies: @Jack D, @Anonymous, @LP5

    Pournelle’s iron law of bureaucracy: In any bureaucracy, the people devoted to the benefit of the bureaucracy itself always get in control and those dedicated to the goals that the bureaucracy is supposed to accomplish have less and less influence, and sometimes are eliminated entirely.

    I think Pournelle was being charitable (no pun intended). For “the benefit of the bureaucracy itself” I would say “lining their own wallets”. Grifters are always more highly motivated than do-gooders and better at pulling the wool over their eyes than vice versa.

  71. @Jack D
    @Neutral Observer

    Holmes hooked in the MIC guys because she thought that the Pentagon could be a big customer. Imagine an Army medic carrying a portable Edison machine (BTW what is up with naming your product for dead inventors - talk about stolen valor) in a backpack and giving finger prick blood tests in the field - the Army would have been very interested. And you could price such a device at some ridiculous defense contractor $300 toilet seat level - it wouldn't have to be competitive with the cost of conventional lab work.

    Holmes (at least at the beginning) in her ignorance really did not believe the naysayers who said that her machine was impossible. Her plan really was "fake it till you make it". If everything had gone the way she imagined, in the end the technical difficulties would have been overcome and eventually the device would have produced verifiable results that would have passed FDA scrutiny. The tales of the early days when she was faking the results on conventional machines would have become part of Silicon Valley lore instead of being the subject of Federal indictment and she would become the female Steve Jobs.

    It is said that a web of lies starts out as thin as a strand of spider's silk but eventually it becomes as stout as a ship's rope. Holmes's problem was that "making it" was always impossible - she could have gone thru a billion $ of VC money or $10 billion and STILL have not made it. At some point in your vaporware venture you pull the plug and send everyone home and auction off the office furniture and you tell the VC guys that sorry, your money is gone (they're big boys - they can take it because they know that one investment in the next Facebook can pay for 1,000 vaporwares so they keep betting). But Holmes just kept on doubling down on the lies until she was in too deep to get out.

    Replies: @Almost Missouri

    Holmes hooked in the MIC guys because she thought that the Pentagon could be a big customer. Imagine an Army medic carrying a portable Edison machine … in a backpack and giving finger prick blood tests in the field – the Army would have been very interested

    I’ve heard this before, but I’m still a little baffled why this is supposed to be of any military use. Every GI’s blood type is already on his dog tag, and as far as what is ailing him, it is either a bullet or shrapnel which do not differ in treatment anyway, and if he’s lost blood, they’re only going to be giving type-agnostic plasma in the field. But some poor private would be tasked with dragging the “Edison” machine through combat so that when Joe gets hit, they can prick his finger and tell him, “Never mind your sucking chest wound Joe, did you know you have an undiagnosed gluten allergy?”

    I think “monk” Mattis was just taken by the fact a 20-somehting blonde would invite a 67-year-old retiree to her board.

    (BTW what is up with naming your product for dead inventors – talk about stolen valor)

    Agreed.

  72. This certainly is an extraordinary case.

    One is tempted to think that Holmes is simply a con-woman who came from a very wealthy family. Her father was a vice-president of Enron, so is likely to have been a multimillionaire if he sold Enron stock before the crash, and her mother was a “congressional committee staffer”, so one assumes that she very likely had access to people who held political power.

    The young Holmes had private Chinese lessons at home, sold C++ compilers to China when she was still in high school, worked in Singapore as a research assistant during her summer vacation of the first year of college, and filed her first patent application on a wearable drug-delivery patch in 2003 (when she would have been 19).

    She also won the US Open Ladies tennis title having never played before–no, she didn’t, but her resume seems quite remarkable all the same.

    So I guess the family contacts plus the rest of this marked her as a young woman with a remarkable future, assuming that this really was her own work and that she was not fronting for someone else.

    Her idea of developing a machine that could analyze finger-prick blood samples to perform common blood tests was an interesting one, given that most people have to have blood draws, and that most people do not enjoy the experience.

    You have to get up super early in the morning, refrain from eating and drinking anything from midnight, and then go and sit in a waiting room until called to get a needle stuck in your arm by an African-American woman. It really messes up your day.

    Wouldn’t it be nice if you could just have a finger pricked–maybe do it yourself, and just mail it in, or drop it off at Walgreen’s after breakfast?

    After all diabetics test for blood glucose at home by this method and there are similar machines that can given coagulation rate readings, so why not do everything the same way? (Hint: how do you do studies that require separating blood cells from the serum?)

    Another factor that may have come into play here is that lab testing is enormously profitable in the US. Although there are standard machines used all over the world to analyze blood samples and print out results, prices to the patient in the US are often ten times the prices for the same thing in other countries, so if you could get a share of this incredibly lucrative market, you would be quids in.

    So Holmes managed to get huge amounts of funding from very wealthy but very elderly men like George Schulz and Rupert Murdoch, a billionaire known to have an eye for picking winners in the ladies department, who would most likely prefer to have a young lady fingering his prick than pricking his finger. Investors also included the Walton family–the ones who own the majority shareholding in Walmart, not the John-Boy family– and Betsy de Vos, a strange woman from a very wealthy Michigan family, whose husband owns Amway and whose brother owns Blackwater USA, a military contractor.

    But did Holmes really believe that the technology existed to make the machines that she had dreamed of? I can’t find any reports of her company filing lots of patents, or any patents except for a capillary blood drawing tube device called the nanotainer that is no longer authorized by the FDA for use.

    https://static01.nyt.com/images/2015/10/31/business/31THERANOSjp/31THERANOSjp-jumbo.jpg?

    They did succeed in producing a finger-prick blood testing machine for herpes simplex, that was approved by the FDA. But how much of a market was there for this alone? It is not like people test themselves every day for herpes, like diabetics.

    How on earth did she manage to con a large cap corporation like Walgreens/Boots into going along with her service? I guess there was potentially a lot of money in it for them too, especially if Theranos was actually running the tests on cheap machines and charging for a premium service. But it seems that it was more of a pilot program in 40 locations, and that it ended up with Walgreens suing Theranos for nonperformance.

    The bad new about Theranos began to break when George Schulz’s grandson, perhaps concerned that Gramps was exchanging his family’s inheritance for a mess of pottage in his dotage, began to leak information about the lack of new technology used by Theranos.

    I think there is probably a lot behind this story that is not in the public “narrative”, (“narrative” = garbled version of truth as understood by casual consumers of media) and that we will probably never know everything that went on behind the scenes.

    Should she go to prison? Well, it just depends on whether you think there should be one rule for the rich and another for the poor. If she promises that she will not do it again, she can go and stand on the naughty step with George W. Bush and do art therapy.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    @Jonathan Mason


    One is tempted to think that Holmes is simply a con-woman who came from a very wealthy family. Her father was a vice-president of Enron, so is likely to have been a multimillionaire if he sold Enron stock before the crash, and her mother was a “congressional committee staffer”, so one assumes that she very likely had access to people who held political power.

    The young Holmes had private Chinese lessons at home, sold C++ compilers to China when she was still in high school, worked in Singapore as a research assistant during her summer vacation of the first year of college, and filed her first patent application on a wearable drug-delivery patch in 2003 (when she would have been 19).
     
    One thing I can say about EH is that she has a certain *glow* about her. Oh, and a family friend was a psychiatrist and CIA agent.
    , @Jack D
    @Jonathan Mason


    George Schulz’s grandson, perhaps concerned that Gramps was exchanging his family’s inheritance for a mess of pottage in his dotage, began to leak information about the lack of new technology used by Theranos.
     
    While Shultz was not a poor man, his wealth was a rounding error next to the Waltons or the Murdochs. Holmes didn't want Shultz's money (indeed she probably paid him for sitting on the board); she wanted his good name (which she thought that she could convert to money).

    In the event, when Holmes suspected the grandson of leaking, she had her legal pitbulls sue the hell out of the grandson and his parents had to mortgage their family home in order to pay lawyers hundred of thousands of $ to defend the case. Meanwhile Shultz, Sr. sided with Holmes instead of his own flesh and blood and cooperated with Holmes's lawyers to spring a legal ambush on him at his house after summoning him there on a pretext. I don't know whether Tyler ever reconciled with his grandpa. Hopefully when he died George left his own son enough money to unmortage his house.

    Replies: @notsaying

  73. @Jim Christian
    Hey Steve, go find Maureen Dowd's piece on Holmes. Dowd roasted Holmes on the whole charade, the black turtlenecks, wannabe-SteveJobs, the hiding behind sexism, her risky play in the medical field where she could have killed someone and whatnot. Whole lotta whatnot. I'm assuming the op-ed didn't take from Dowd. I was surprised to see them gang up on poor Liz. Even if she IS a crook.

    Replies: @res

    • Replies: @Jim Christian
    @res

    No,, it's dated 9.18.21. Titled: Never Complain, Never Explain. She rips AOC a fair bit too.

  74. @Jack D
    @El Dato

    I see Kildalls a lot. They are greedy and short sighted and lack the vision thing. They assume that their market is small and they turn that into a self fulfilling prophecy by overpricing their product. They look at the math and say, I'm selling 10,000 units of this product/ year so I need to price it as $240 to cover my overhead and make enough profit to make the payments on my plane, boat, house, alimony, etc. If you tell them that if they priced it at $40 instead of $240 they'd sell a million, they don't believe you. In any case, in between is a vast chasm where you are still selling only 10,000 units at $40 and you won't be able to even make your payroll let alone the boat payments. So they stick at $240 and not a penny less.

    The Chinese, like Gates, think long term and understand that market share is everything. They introduce products at cost or even below cost in order to gain market share. Maybe to hit that price point you have to cut a few corners on quality - that's OK because people like cheap more than they care about quality. 80% of the quality for 1/3 the price is a winning formula. The Chinese that figure once they have put all of their competitors out of business there will be plenty of time and opportunity to jack up the prices later and Gates proved that they are right.

    Replies: @Jonathan Mason

    80% of the quality for 1/3 the price is a winning formula.

    I don’t know. Look at phone brands like Realme vs Redmi. I have a Realme, which cost me \$130 and is an excellent phone–more than good enough for my needs, and I am using it as a modem for my desktop as I type this.

    Once they have cornered the market and put everyone else out of business, will they increase the price of their phones to \$1000 like Apple?

    • Replies: @Jack D
    @Jonathan Mason


    Once they have cornered the market and put everyone else out of business, will they increase the price of their phones to $1000 like Apple?
     
    Sure, why not. They have already driven out or bought out early leading Western players like Nokia and Motorola. The Japanese, once the kings of electronics, never really got going in selling cell phones outside of Japan. LG, once in the top 3, is pulling out of the market. Samsung has abandoned China, neither making nor selling phones in the worlds largest market.

    If you go by # of units sold, "China" already sells 2/3 of the phones made. And that's not counting the fact that iPhones are also mostly made in China.

    The only reason this doesn't happen is that the Chinese have a competitive internal market and the Chinese government still takes anti-trust seriously. For example, China still has 13 carmakers.

    Replies: @epebble

  75. @Mr. Anon

    Elizabeth Holmes followed the Silicon Valley playbook to a T. She was focused and ambitious. She had a compelling vision to help humanity with technology for blood tests, and her ambition, she said, was driven by a personal fear of needles. She fit the pattern of the young, brilliant college dropout, even dressing like Steve Jobs.
     
    And after all, that's what really makes you smart and capable - wearing a turtleneck.

    It's remarkable how shallow and stupid so many of the "elites" are. Or course, Ellen Pao isn't in the top rank of said elite. She's just a third-rate grifter. Ugly inside and out.

    Replies: @Jack D, @James J O'Meara, @El Dato, @Muggles

    She had a compelling vision to help humanity with technology for blood tests, and her ambition, she said, was driven by a personal fear of needles.

    Can you imagine any actual male being described so laudably as this?

    A “compelling vision” and “his ambition” “he said” was “driven by a personal fear of needles.”

    Not only would “he” be laughed out of any room this nonsense was uttered in, but probably beaten up on the way out by outraged would-be investors.

    Since Lizzie Holmes was a blondish female, this kind of praise, usually reserved for the severely retarded, is instead cited as evidence of her profound personal motivation. Only a stone hearted sexist could think otherwise…

    • LOL: Bumpkin
  76. @Jack D
    @TGGP

    I disagree with Andrew. Holmes didn't start out to be a fraudster. If that was her plan, she would have just funneled all the money to a Cayman Islands bank account, but instead she spent most of it on attempts to build a working product. Her plan was "fake it 'till you make it".

    So Gates is sympathetic because that was his plan too - when IBM called him up and ask him if he had an operating system for a PC, he lied and told them "sure" and then he went out real quick and bought one from someone. But his plan succeeded and hers failed and that's the tragic part.

    But trying and failing is not a crime. It's the Watergate story - the real crime is the coverup. When her machine didn't work, she didn't own up to failure, she just starting lying and faking results. And not lying about how soon your taxi was coming but about things that affected people's health.

    Replies: @epebble, @James J O'Meara, @Hypnotoad666, @El Dato, @International Jew, @NOTA

    I think a lot of fraud works this way. Like a gambler who keeps borrowing money, stealing and hocking relatives’ jewelry, stealing from the till, etc., in the fervent belief that he will somehow win it all back and everything will be forgiven. I doubt Holmes started out planning fraud, but she reached a point where fraud was the pnly way to put off the day of reckoning. And eventually it all collapsed.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    @NOTA

    This was a little different from the usual fraud that involves cooking the books and the only damage is to people's bank accounts. In this case, she was cooking the lab results, which is worse. Luckily, she was never able to get a real hospital or doctors to sign up for her phony testing service - this was something that people did on their own by going to a Walgreens, no prescription needed. So the worst that apparently happened is that people would get wildly anomalous results (sir, we regret to inform you that you are pregnant) and they would go to the emergency room or doctor who would repeat the test and assure them that they were fine. But she could have killed people if things had gone a bit differently.

  77. @James J O'Meara
    @Jack D

    " If I didn’t have to be constrained by the limits of what is physically possible and feasible within the limits of technology, I could give you a trillion $ idea every day for a year and not run out."

    Like that moron Henry Ford, three companies run into bankruptcy, now he wants to make a car he can sell for $300! AND pay his workers (a bunch of monkeys) 10x the going wage! Good day to you, sir!

    Replies: @notsaying, @Jack D, @mmack, @NOTA

    Failure and fraud aren’t the same thing.

    • Agree: El Dato
  78. @Jonathan Mason
    @Jack D

    80% of the quality for 1/3 the price is a winning formula.

    I don't know. Look at phone brands like Realme vs Redmi. I have a Realme, which cost me $130 and is an excellent phone--more than good enough for my needs, and I am using it as a modem for my desktop as I type this.

    Once they have cornered the market and put everyone else out of business, will they increase the price of their phones to $1000 like Apple?

    Replies: @Jack D

    Once they have cornered the market and put everyone else out of business, will they increase the price of their phones to \$1000 like Apple?

    Sure, why not. They have already driven out or bought out early leading Western players like Nokia and Motorola. The Japanese, once the kings of electronics, never really got going in selling cell phones outside of Japan. LG, once in the top 3, is pulling out of the market. Samsung has abandoned China, neither making nor selling phones in the worlds largest market.

    If you go by # of units sold, “China” already sells 2/3 of the phones made. And that’s not counting the fact that iPhones are also mostly made in China.

    The only reason this doesn’t happen is that the Chinese have a competitive internal market and the Chinese government still takes anti-trust seriously. For example, China still has 13 carmakers.

    • Replies: @epebble
    @Jack D

    will they increase the price of their phones to $1000?

    I don't think so. Phone business has a fairly low barrier to entry. The chips and components are widely available (mostly from Qualcomm, Samsung, MediaTek, Intel/Apple ). Board assembly is available in, (besides China ) Japan, Taiwan, Korea, Singapore, Malaysia, India. Even Indonesia, Philippines, Vietnam and Thailand can do some board making. All Android phones run mostly standard Open Source software from Google. It is hard to make huge monopoly profits. Apple's business model relies a lot on positioning itself as a luxury product. Somewhat like the Gucci, Prada, Louis Vuitton handbags.

  79. @Jack D
    @Jonathan Mason


    Once they have cornered the market and put everyone else out of business, will they increase the price of their phones to $1000 like Apple?
     
    Sure, why not. They have already driven out or bought out early leading Western players like Nokia and Motorola. The Japanese, once the kings of electronics, never really got going in selling cell phones outside of Japan. LG, once in the top 3, is pulling out of the market. Samsung has abandoned China, neither making nor selling phones in the worlds largest market.

    If you go by # of units sold, "China" already sells 2/3 of the phones made. And that's not counting the fact that iPhones are also mostly made in China.

    The only reason this doesn't happen is that the Chinese have a competitive internal market and the Chinese government still takes anti-trust seriously. For example, China still has 13 carmakers.

    Replies: @epebble

    will they increase the price of their phones to \$1000?

    I don’t think so. Phone business has a fairly low barrier to entry. The chips and components are widely available (mostly from Qualcomm, Samsung, MediaTek, Intel/Apple ). Board assembly is available in, (besides China ) Japan, Taiwan, Korea, Singapore, Malaysia, India. Even Indonesia, Philippines, Vietnam and Thailand can do some board making. All Android phones run mostly standard Open Source software from Google. It is hard to make huge monopoly profits. Apple’s business model relies a lot on positioning itself as a luxury product. Somewhat like the Gucci, Prada, Louis Vuitton handbags.

    • Agree: Jim Don Bob
  80. Anonymous[169] • Disclaimer says:
    @Jonathan Mason
    This certainly is an extraordinary case.

    One is tempted to think that Holmes is simply a con-woman who came from a very wealthy family. Her father was a vice-president of Enron, so is likely to have been a multimillionaire if he sold Enron stock before the crash, and her mother was a "congressional committee staffer", so one assumes that she very likely had access to people who held political power.

    The young Holmes had private Chinese lessons at home, sold C++ compilers to China when she was still in high school, worked in Singapore as a research assistant during her summer vacation of the first year of college, and filed her first patent application on a wearable drug-delivery patch in 2003 (when she would have been 19).

    She also won the US Open Ladies tennis title having never played before--no, she didn't, but her resume seems quite remarkable all the same.

    So I guess the family contacts plus the rest of this marked her as a young woman with a remarkable future, assuming that this really was her own work and that she was not fronting for someone else.

    Her idea of developing a machine that could analyze finger-prick blood samples to perform common blood tests was an interesting one, given that most people have to have blood draws, and that most people do not enjoy the experience.

    You have to get up super early in the morning, refrain from eating and drinking anything from midnight, and then go and sit in a waiting room until called to get a needle stuck in your arm by an African-American woman. It really messes up your day.

    Wouldn't it be nice if you could just have a finger pricked--maybe do it yourself, and just mail it in, or drop it off at Walgreen's after breakfast?

    After all diabetics test for blood glucose at home by this method and there are similar machines that can given coagulation rate readings, so why not do everything the same way? (Hint: how do you do studies that require separating blood cells from the serum?)

    https://i0.wp.com/www.patientselftesting.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/PT2.png?w=400&ssl=1

    Another factor that may have come into play here is that lab testing is enormously profitable in the US. Although there are standard machines used all over the world to analyze blood samples and print out results, prices to the patient in the US are often ten times the prices for the same thing in other countries, so if you could get a share of this incredibly lucrative market, you would be quids in.

    So Holmes managed to get huge amounts of funding from very wealthy but very elderly men like George Schulz and Rupert Murdoch, a billionaire known to have an eye for picking winners in the ladies department, who would most likely prefer to have a young lady fingering his prick than pricking his finger. Investors also included the Walton family--the ones who own the majority shareholding in Walmart, not the John-Boy family-- and Betsy de Vos, a strange woman from a very wealthy Michigan family, whose husband owns Amway and whose brother owns Blackwater USA, a military contractor.

    But did Holmes really believe that the technology existed to make the machines that she had dreamed of? I can't find any reports of her company filing lots of patents, or any patents except for a capillary blood drawing tube device called the nanotainer that is no longer authorized by the FDA for use.

    https://static01.nyt.com/images/2015/10/31/business/31THERANOSjp/31THERANOSjp-jumbo.jpg?

    They did succeed in producing a finger-prick blood testing machine for herpes simplex, that was approved by the FDA. But how much of a market was there for this alone? It is not like people test themselves every day for herpes, like diabetics.

    How on earth did she manage to con a large cap corporation like Walgreens/Boots into going along with her service? I guess there was potentially a lot of money in it for them too, especially if Theranos was actually running the tests on cheap machines and charging for a premium service. But it seems that it was more of a pilot program in 40 locations, and that it ended up with Walgreens suing Theranos for nonperformance.

    The bad new about Theranos began to break when George Schulz's grandson, perhaps concerned that Gramps was exchanging his family's inheritance for a mess of pottage in his dotage, began to leak information about the lack of new technology used by Theranos.

    I think there is probably a lot behind this story that is not in the public "narrative", ("narrative" = garbled version of truth as understood by casual consumers of media) and that we will probably never know everything that went on behind the scenes.

    Should she go to prison? Well, it just depends on whether you think there should be one rule for the rich and another for the poor. If she promises that she will not do it again, she can go and stand on the naughty step with George W. Bush and do art therapy.

    Replies: @Anonymous, @Jack D

    One is tempted to think that Holmes is simply a con-woman who came from a very wealthy family. Her father was a vice-president of Enron, so is likely to have been a multimillionaire if he sold Enron stock before the crash, and her mother was a “congressional committee staffer”, so one assumes that she very likely had access to people who held political power.

    The young Holmes had private Chinese lessons at home, sold C++ compilers to China when she was still in high school, worked in Singapore as a research assistant during her summer vacation of the first year of college, and filed her first patent application on a wearable drug-delivery patch in 2003 (when she would have been 19).

    One thing I can say about EH is that she has a certain *glow* about her. Oh, and a family friend was a psychiatrist and CIA agent.

  81. @Jonathan Mason
    This certainly is an extraordinary case.

    One is tempted to think that Holmes is simply a con-woman who came from a very wealthy family. Her father was a vice-president of Enron, so is likely to have been a multimillionaire if he sold Enron stock before the crash, and her mother was a "congressional committee staffer", so one assumes that she very likely had access to people who held political power.

    The young Holmes had private Chinese lessons at home, sold C++ compilers to China when she was still in high school, worked in Singapore as a research assistant during her summer vacation of the first year of college, and filed her first patent application on a wearable drug-delivery patch in 2003 (when she would have been 19).

    She also won the US Open Ladies tennis title having never played before--no, she didn't, but her resume seems quite remarkable all the same.

    So I guess the family contacts plus the rest of this marked her as a young woman with a remarkable future, assuming that this really was her own work and that she was not fronting for someone else.

    Her idea of developing a machine that could analyze finger-prick blood samples to perform common blood tests was an interesting one, given that most people have to have blood draws, and that most people do not enjoy the experience.

    You have to get up super early in the morning, refrain from eating and drinking anything from midnight, and then go and sit in a waiting room until called to get a needle stuck in your arm by an African-American woman. It really messes up your day.

    Wouldn't it be nice if you could just have a finger pricked--maybe do it yourself, and just mail it in, or drop it off at Walgreen's after breakfast?

    After all diabetics test for blood glucose at home by this method and there are similar machines that can given coagulation rate readings, so why not do everything the same way? (Hint: how do you do studies that require separating blood cells from the serum?)

    https://i0.wp.com/www.patientselftesting.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/PT2.png?w=400&ssl=1

    Another factor that may have come into play here is that lab testing is enormously profitable in the US. Although there are standard machines used all over the world to analyze blood samples and print out results, prices to the patient in the US are often ten times the prices for the same thing in other countries, so if you could get a share of this incredibly lucrative market, you would be quids in.

    So Holmes managed to get huge amounts of funding from very wealthy but very elderly men like George Schulz and Rupert Murdoch, a billionaire known to have an eye for picking winners in the ladies department, who would most likely prefer to have a young lady fingering his prick than pricking his finger. Investors also included the Walton family--the ones who own the majority shareholding in Walmart, not the John-Boy family-- and Betsy de Vos, a strange woman from a very wealthy Michigan family, whose husband owns Amway and whose brother owns Blackwater USA, a military contractor.

    But did Holmes really believe that the technology existed to make the machines that she had dreamed of? I can't find any reports of her company filing lots of patents, or any patents except for a capillary blood drawing tube device called the nanotainer that is no longer authorized by the FDA for use.

    https://static01.nyt.com/images/2015/10/31/business/31THERANOSjp/31THERANOSjp-jumbo.jpg?

    They did succeed in producing a finger-prick blood testing machine for herpes simplex, that was approved by the FDA. But how much of a market was there for this alone? It is not like people test themselves every day for herpes, like diabetics.

    How on earth did she manage to con a large cap corporation like Walgreens/Boots into going along with her service? I guess there was potentially a lot of money in it for them too, especially if Theranos was actually running the tests on cheap machines and charging for a premium service. But it seems that it was more of a pilot program in 40 locations, and that it ended up with Walgreens suing Theranos for nonperformance.

    The bad new about Theranos began to break when George Schulz's grandson, perhaps concerned that Gramps was exchanging his family's inheritance for a mess of pottage in his dotage, began to leak information about the lack of new technology used by Theranos.

    I think there is probably a lot behind this story that is not in the public "narrative", ("narrative" = garbled version of truth as understood by casual consumers of media) and that we will probably never know everything that went on behind the scenes.

    Should she go to prison? Well, it just depends on whether you think there should be one rule for the rich and another for the poor. If she promises that she will not do it again, she can go and stand on the naughty step with George W. Bush and do art therapy.

    Replies: @Anonymous, @Jack D

    George Schulz’s grandson, perhaps concerned that Gramps was exchanging his family’s inheritance for a mess of pottage in his dotage, began to leak information about the lack of new technology used by Theranos.

    While Shultz was not a poor man, his wealth was a rounding error next to the Waltons or the Murdochs. Holmes didn’t want Shultz’s money (indeed she probably paid him for sitting on the board); she wanted his good name (which she thought that she could convert to money).

    In the event, when Holmes suspected the grandson of leaking, she had her legal pitbulls sue the hell out of the grandson and his parents had to mortgage their family home in order to pay lawyers hundred of thousands of \$ to defend the case. Meanwhile Shultz, Sr. sided with Holmes instead of his own flesh and blood and cooperated with Holmes’s lawyers to spring a legal ambush on him at his house after summoning him there on a pretext. I don’t know whether Tyler ever reconciled with his grandpa. Hopefully when he died George left his own son enough money to unmortage his house.

    • Replies: @notsaying
    @Jack D

    I saw the 60 Minutes (?) story about the grandson that talked about this, I don't know if that is where you got your information. In any case, what she did to the Schulz family made my blood boil. I was already livid about all the lying and what it was over. You do not just make stuff up and stick to it for years and threaten employees over people's fake medical tests and health.

    That young kid acted magnificently.

    She and the company were truly contemptible and loathsome.

    I sure wish Tyler Schulz would work for the government or run for something. He is exactly the kind of person we need but of course I do not know if he could stomach it.

    I found this Reddit page that has a statement from George Schultz and some interesting comments. It was titled reconciliation but others point out the elder Schultz left out some important things.

    https://www.reddit.com/r/Theranos/comments/avycrz/looks_like_george_schultz_and_tyler_have/

  82. @NOTA
    @Jack D

    I think a lot of fraud works this way. Like a gambler who keeps borrowing money, stealing and hocking relatives' jewelry, stealing from the till, etc., in the fervent belief that he will somehow win it all back and everything will be forgiven. I doubt Holmes started out planning fraud, but she reached a point where fraud was the pnly way to put off the day of reckoning. And eventually it all collapsed.

    Replies: @Jack D

    This was a little different from the usual fraud that involves cooking the books and the only damage is to people’s bank accounts. In this case, she was cooking the lab results, which is worse. Luckily, she was never able to get a real hospital or doctors to sign up for her phony testing service – this was something that people did on their own by going to a Walgreens, no prescription needed. So the worst that apparently happened is that people would get wildly anomalous results (sir, we regret to inform you that you are pregnant) and they would go to the emergency room or doctor who would repeat the test and assure them that they were fine. But she could have killed people if things had gone a bit differently.

    • Agree: notsaying
  83. Anonymous[425] • Disclaimer says:
    @Almost Missouri
    @Jack D


    There are no standards in the non-profit business as to how much of the money that you raise has to actually be devoted to charitable activities as opposed to fund raising or paying executive salaries.
     
    I was at a budget meeting for the fundraising department of a nonprofit where I worked. The fundraiser's presentation was all about about how much money they had raised for the organization and all the glossy ways they had done it. At the end of the presentation, they asked if there were any questions. No one raised any. Since the fundraiser had never said what their budget was (in a "budget meeting"), I raised my hand and asked that.

    "Oo," said the fundraiser looking surprised by the question as she hurriedly riffled through her papers, "aaaah ... that would be $x." [where x is a number about one third more than the amount of money they had just spent the meeting bragging about having raised]

    I looked around the room to see if anyone else understood the significance of the juxtaposition of these two numbers, but everyone was just nodding and smiling at the fundraiser.

    That was the last budget meeting I ever went to there. I left shortly afterwards.

    Incidentally, before this meeting, I had noticed that despite the organization's hairshirted reputation (in some ways deserved), that the the admin building's parking lot had a some expensive hardware in it. In every case where I could connect the pricey wheels to an owner, it always turned out to be someone in the fundraising department. Well, that mystery was solved anyway.

    The really sad part for that charity was that most of their donations came from long-established donors who would send a check every year no matter what, so a monkey could have "raised" most of their donations any given year at zero cost. Instead they hired a bunch of pro grifters who took all their donation money plus part of their operating funds, and bought fancy cars and whatnot before rotating out. Dumb. Dumb. Dumb. Sad. Dumb.

    Replies: @Jack D, @Anonymous, @LP5

    Incidentally, before this meeting, I had noticed that despite the organization’s hairshirted reputation (in some ways deserved),

    I’ve been watching the non-profit world from an adjacent field. In my experience there’s two levels of employee. The top level is composed of competent, industrious, schmoozing types. They’re the CEO, CFO and fundraisers and are compensated fairly well given they don’t have actual deliverables The other level are mid level managers, support drones and others. This level is basically on the dole doing liberal busywork and are paid accordingly. There’s a fair amount of resentment from the lower level towards the upper level. While the entire sector is heavily female, the upper tier seems to be even more so, and is much more White/Asian/upper class Hispanic than the proles.

    When there are budget shortfalls the lower tier gets their hours cut and less makework projects get funded.

    It’s really amazing how much is spent on doing nothing when you start looking at all of these groups. Things like a \$50,000 city grant to send out teenage youth during the summer to identify graffiti then have them paint it over. The local news rolls out a camera truck and has a heartwarming story, but in reality the city works crew could have done a job for a tenth of the cost.

    The far left doesn’t like these groups either. Google ‘non profit industrial complex’ for their thought.

    • Replies: @Almost Missouri
    @Anonymous

    Yes, I've seen many of those kinds of charities too. Indded, they may be most of the nonprofit sector, for all I know. Nevertheless, the charity in my anecdote was a real charity with a real mission and real deliverables. If it didn't exist, the state would try to do the same job but much worse and for more money. Ironically, the charity could be much cheaper than the state, rather than just slightly cheaper, if they would fire all their fundraisers.

  84. What about the enablers in the media? I remember reading about this very early on in business articles, suggesting that you should invest in Theranos and things like that. No checking whatsoever.

    What about what’s happening now with Covid and the vaccines and the tests? Quite a few people made money during this period in ways perhaps worse and in the long run more fraudulent than Ms. Holmes (although in a smarter way – she may be Holmes, but she ain’t a Sherlock).

    • Agree: El Dato
  85. If Holmes is having trouble paying her legal costs, I have a deal: I will pay her a hundred dollars if she gives me a nice refreshing Golden Shower.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    @prosa123

    Holmes would never prostitute herself for $100. For a million $, sure, but not for $100.

    , @El Dato
    @prosa123

    After all this, do you suppose she's clean?

    , @Stan Adams
    @prosa123

    How much would you pay for a Theranos Thermos filled with her bodily fluids?

  86. @prosa123
    If Holmes is having trouble paying her legal costs, I have a deal: I will pay her a hundred dollars if she gives me a nice refreshing Golden Shower.

    Replies: @Jack D, @El Dato, @Stan Adams

    Holmes would never prostitute herself for \$100. For a million \$, sure, but not for \$100.

  87. @Bumpkin

    Interestingly, Holmes got little investment from Silicon Valley figures: Larry Ellison is the only one I can think of. Actual venture capitalists shied away from her company.
     
    Largely correct, but there was one SV VC who got in early, Tim Draper. I'm told the rest were interested but that when they asked for more details on the testing equipment, they were told it was proprietary and would not be disclosed, so they told her to go kick sand.

    Replies: @Unladen Swallow

    There is even an explanation for Tim Draper, he was a family friend of Holmes’ dad, and had known Elizabeth Holmes from when she was a kid, Draper was really the only VC in the valley to give her money. None of the other major firms did, and none of the smaller ones specializing in biotech gave her any money either, that’s why she was relying on non-tech oriented rich people to finance her company.

    • Agree: Bumpkin
  88. @Pharaoh
    @HammerJack


    Modern bio-tech is nearly there on that one!
    Here’s a photo of the prototype:
     
    The sniffing dog could be superfluous soon. Here's the real prototype for the future, and it's inventor Oshiorenoya Agabi:

    https://i1.wp.com/thespoon.tech/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Blue-On-Table.Koniku.jpg


    https://dldnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/Osh-Agabi-Flickr-DLD19.jpg


    More info:

    https://thespoon.tech/konikus-synthetic-sniffer-identifies-smells-just-dont-call-it-a-digital-nose/

    Koniku is using actual protein molecules to detect different compounds that objects (such as ripening strawberries) emit. “The cells [in the Konikore] are genetically modified to create sensors that would exist in your nose,” Agabi said. “We are not mimicking olfaction, we are using the same olfaction that exists in the nose of a dog.”

    Koniku currently has a library of more than 4,000 compounds that it can identify, which the company will ratchet up to hundreds of thousands “soon” according to Agabi.

     

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    Sniff Dogg.

  89. @Jack D
    @Jonathan Mason


    George Schulz’s grandson, perhaps concerned that Gramps was exchanging his family’s inheritance for a mess of pottage in his dotage, began to leak information about the lack of new technology used by Theranos.
     
    While Shultz was not a poor man, his wealth was a rounding error next to the Waltons or the Murdochs. Holmes didn't want Shultz's money (indeed she probably paid him for sitting on the board); she wanted his good name (which she thought that she could convert to money).

    In the event, when Holmes suspected the grandson of leaking, she had her legal pitbulls sue the hell out of the grandson and his parents had to mortgage their family home in order to pay lawyers hundred of thousands of $ to defend the case. Meanwhile Shultz, Sr. sided with Holmes instead of his own flesh and blood and cooperated with Holmes's lawyers to spring a legal ambush on him at his house after summoning him there on a pretext. I don't know whether Tyler ever reconciled with his grandpa. Hopefully when he died George left his own son enough money to unmortage his house.

    Replies: @notsaying

    I saw the 60 Minutes (?) story about the grandson that talked about this, I don’t know if that is where you got your information. In any case, what she did to the Schulz family made my blood boil. I was already livid about all the lying and what it was over. You do not just make stuff up and stick to it for years and threaten employees over people’s fake medical tests and health.

    That young kid acted magnificently.

    She and the company were truly contemptible and loathsome.

    I sure wish Tyler Schulz would work for the government or run for something. He is exactly the kind of person we need but of course I do not know if he could stomach it.

    I found this Reddit page that has a statement from George Schultz and some interesting comments. It was titled reconciliation but others point out the elder Schultz left out some important things.

    Looks like George Schultz and Tyler have reconciled! from Theranos

  90. @res
    @Jim Christian

    This one?
    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/26/opinion/sunday/grifters-gone-wild.html

    Replies: @Jim Christian

    No,, it’s dated 9.18.21. Titled: Never Complain, Never Explain. She rips AOC a fair bit too.

  91. The “fake it until you make it” analogy is Tesla (Musk version). The problem for Theranos was that it wasn’t a public company. Musk was able to raise funds for a non-viable business via secondary offerings until he built a decent cash horde.

    On the other hand, the IPO disclosures for Theranos may have exposed the company for what it was.

  92. @Anonymous
    @Almost Missouri

    Incidentally, before this meeting, I had noticed that despite the organization’s hairshirted reputation (in some ways deserved),

    I've been watching the non-profit world from an adjacent field. In my experience there's two levels of employee. The top level is composed of competent, industrious, schmoozing types. They're the CEO, CFO and fundraisers and are compensated fairly well given they don't have actual deliverables The other level are mid level managers, support drones and others. This level is basically on the dole doing liberal busywork and are paid accordingly. There's a fair amount of resentment from the lower level towards the upper level. While the entire sector is heavily female, the upper tier seems to be even more so, and is much more White/Asian/upper class Hispanic than the proles.

    When there are budget shortfalls the lower tier gets their hours cut and less makework projects get funded.

    It's really amazing how much is spent on doing nothing when you start looking at all of these groups. Things like a $50,000 city grant to send out teenage youth during the summer to identify graffiti then have them paint it over. The local news rolls out a camera truck and has a heartwarming story, but in reality the city works crew could have done a job for a tenth of the cost.

    The far left doesn't like these groups either. Google 'non profit industrial complex' for their thought.

    Replies: @Almost Missouri

    Yes, I’ve seen many of those kinds of charities too. Indded, they may be most of the nonprofit sector, for all I know. Nevertheless, the charity in my anecdote was a real charity with a real mission and real deliverables. If it didn’t exist, the state would try to do the same job but much worse and for more money. Ironically, the charity could be much cheaper than the state, rather than just slightly cheaper, if they would fire all their fundraisers.

  93. @prosa123
    If Holmes is having trouble paying her legal costs, I have a deal: I will pay her a hundred dollars if she gives me a nice refreshing Golden Shower.

    Replies: @Jack D, @El Dato, @Stan Adams

    After all this, do you suppose she’s clean?

  94. @mmack
    @James J O'Meara

    Other than the fact that:
    - Henry Ford built working prototypes of automobiles he could show investors
    - Henry Ford built racing cars that showcased his company’s technology to investors
    - Henry Ford’s second company became the Cadillac division of General Motors (Henry left, the company didn’t go broke)
    - Henry Ford’s third company has existed just shy of 120 years

    That’s a perfect analogy.

    Replies: @Steve Sailer

    Investors kept trying to get the young Henry Ford to concentrate on being an auto manufacturer, but up until age 40 or so, he was obsessed with designing and driving race cars.

    • Replies: @mmack
    @Steve Sailer

    Ford’s biggest hurdle was he accurately identified the market for automobiles was cars for the masses, but early investors wanted him to build luxury cars. His second company brought in Henry Leyland who reorganized it into Cadillac that was then sold to GM. It took until the third try with the Model T to prove his ideas were profitable.

    Henry is the direct opposite of Louis Chevrolet (yes, THAT Chevrolet) who wanted to build luxury cars, but ousted GM founder William Durant recognized Chevrolet had the potential to be a Ford competitor. Durant partnered with Chevrolet and used its profits to buy enough shares in GM that he was able to return to the presidency of GM. Both Durant and Ford were correct in the view that the target market was an auto for the common man, but Durant was more correct in building a company that sold cars for a range of pocketbooks.

    And people wanted Henry to stop racing? The Chevrolet brothers, including Louis, were hard core racers. Louis and his brother Gaston raced in early Indianapolis 500s, and Gaston won the 1920 Indianapolis 500 in a car he and his brother designed and built. It took Gaston’s death in a racing accident to get Louis to stop racing.

    Replies: @JMcG

  95. @J.Ross
    @El Dato

    I think you have it, this is a kind of Freudian slip, good for our entire zero accomplishment zero punishment maximum payout elite. She apparently missed that the reason the image of a Silicon Valley genius wears crummy clothes and slouches in his chair is because he has skills nobody else can replace (or, largely, understand), so nobody dares to tell him about neckties. The reason we are having so many problems right now is they're all frauds.

    Charles Murray has an anecdote in the excellent Curmudgeon's Guide where he had just gotten a gig at a think tank as a young scholar. One weekend he realized he had left something in the office, so he dashed in quickly wearing streetclothes. The elevator opens and one of the senior fellows wearing normal business attire sees Charles. He doesn't chew Charles out, he doesn't scowl, but he does deliver a certain look. Murray dressed properly from then on even if he was just stopping in.
    Now imagine giving Steve Jobs that look in 1983.

    Replies: @Steve Sailer

    Steve Jobs actually dressed well. After all, he had a superb eye for design. His ex-girlfriend Joan Baez tells a funny story about him telling he’s found the perfect dress for her and taking her to the mall, and, yes, it is the perfect dress for her, but it’s \$2,700 and he’s vamoosed to go buy himself some nice shirts. While she’s famous, she’s not terribly rich, not being a songwriter and being pretty charitable, so she doesn’t pay for it herself.

    • Replies: @J.Ross
    @Steve Sailer

    This is a great story (by the way, when Jobs and the Woz were phreaking, and a cop caught them, back in the Captain Crunch days, Jobs immediately handed the Captain Crunch whistle [which could perfectly emulate the tone used by the phone company to signal a long distance call] to the Woz, but, uh, ... the Woz in a Masonic apron, so there.
    http://www.whale.to/c/stevewosniac6x81.jpg

  96. @Steve Sailer
    @J.Ross

    Steve Jobs actually dressed well. After all, he had a superb eye for design. His ex-girlfriend Joan Baez tells a funny story about him telling he's found the perfect dress for her and taking her to the mall, and, yes, it is the perfect dress for her, but it's $2,700 and he's vamoosed to go buy himself some nice shirts. While she's famous, she's not terribly rich, not being a songwriter and being pretty charitable, so she doesn't pay for it herself.

    Replies: @J.Ross

    This is a great story (by the way, when Jobs and the Woz were phreaking, and a cop caught them, back in the Captain Crunch days, Jobs immediately handed the Captain Crunch whistle [which could perfectly emulate the tone used by the phone company to signal a long distance call] to the Woz, but, uh, … the Woz in a Masonic apron, so there.

  97. But after it was revealed that Theranos was not transparent when its blood-testing equipment failed, it became clear that the company would be the exception that proves the rule that tech chief executives rarely face the full consequences of the harm they cause.

    … fake it until you make it …

    I can understand why Silicon Valley accepts the “fake it until you make it” attitude with software or internet startups. Its VC funders, and Ellen Pao herself, have a pretty good idea of what can and cannot be done in those fields, and the timescales needed. In fields that require actual invention, the same attitude does not apply.

    Yet Ms. Holmes is also exceptional for the basic fact that she is a woman.

    No. She is exceptional because she strayed outside the realm of software and the internet into biotechnology.

    • Replies: @Morton's toes
    @James N. Kennett


    In fields that require actual invention, the same attitude does not apply.
     
    I generally agree with this but I don't think there is any way in hell Musk puts an astronaut on Mars ever and he gets funds from the taxpayers.
  98. @Steve Sailer
    @mmack

    Investors kept trying to get the young Henry Ford to concentrate on being an auto manufacturer, but up until age 40 or so, he was obsessed with designing and driving race cars.

    Replies: @mmack

    Ford’s biggest hurdle was he accurately identified the market for automobiles was cars for the masses, but early investors wanted him to build luxury cars. His second company brought in Henry Leyland who reorganized it into Cadillac that was then sold to GM. It took until the third try with the Model T to prove his ideas were profitable.

    Henry is the direct opposite of Louis Chevrolet (yes, THAT Chevrolet) who wanted to build luxury cars, but ousted GM founder William Durant recognized Chevrolet had the potential to be a Ford competitor. Durant partnered with Chevrolet and used its profits to buy enough shares in GM that he was able to return to the presidency of GM. Both Durant and Ford were correct in the view that the target market was an auto for the common man, but Durant was more correct in building a company that sold cars for a range of pocketbooks.

    And people wanted Henry to stop racing? The Chevrolet brothers, including Louis, were hard core racers. Louis and his brother Gaston raced in early Indianapolis 500s, and Gaston won the 1920 Indianapolis 500 in a car he and his brother designed and built. It took Gaston’s death in a racing accident to get Louis to stop racing.

    • Replies: @JMcG
    @mmack

    Thank you, there’s often a nugget of gold in these comment threads.

  99. @El Dato
    @International Jew


    Gates would have started with Linux and tweeked that.
     
    Not being above using the stuff that he derides as "Communism" when it cut into his fat bottom line? Yes, he would.

    Remember when Microsoft had its "Unix is the future" phase back in the 80s:

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

    In the mid-to-late 1980s, Xenix was the most common Unix variant, measured according to the number of machines on which it was installed.

    AT&T started selling System V however, after the breakup of the Bell System. Microsoft, believing that it could not compete with UNIX's developer, decided to abandon XENIX. The decision was not immediately transparent, which led to the term vaporware. It agreed with IBM to develop OS/2, and the XENIX team (together with the best MS-DOS developers)[citation needed] was assigned to that project.

     

    But Microsoft is a wolf. When they could stab IBM in the back on the OS/2 project by rigging Windows to do multitasking, they did.

    Replies: @Stan Adams

    When they could stab IBM in the back on the OS/2 project by rigging Windows to do multitasking, they did.

    Microsoft stabbed IBM in the back, but IBM slashed its own wrists on more than one occasion.

  100. @James N. Kennett


    But after it was revealed that Theranos was not transparent when its blood-testing equipment failed, it became clear that the company would be the exception that proves the rule that tech chief executives rarely face the full consequences of the harm they cause.
     
    ... fake it until you make it ...
     
    I can understand why Silicon Valley accepts the "fake it until you make it" attitude with software or internet startups. Its VC funders, and Ellen Pao herself, have a pretty good idea of what can and cannot be done in those fields, and the timescales needed. In fields that require actual invention, the same attitude does not apply.


    Yet Ms. Holmes is also exceptional for the basic fact that she is a woman.
     

     
    No. She is exceptional because she strayed outside the realm of software and the internet into biotechnology.

    Replies: @Morton's toes

    In fields that require actual invention, the same attitude does not apply.

    I generally agree with this but I don’t think there is any way in hell Musk puts an astronaut on Mars ever and he gets funds from the taxpayers.

  101. @prosa123
    If Holmes is having trouble paying her legal costs, I have a deal: I will pay her a hundred dollars if she gives me a nice refreshing Golden Shower.

    Replies: @Jack D, @El Dato, @Stan Adams

    How much would you pay for a Theranos Thermos filled with her bodily fluids?

  102. @mmack
    @Steve Sailer

    Ford’s biggest hurdle was he accurately identified the market for automobiles was cars for the masses, but early investors wanted him to build luxury cars. His second company brought in Henry Leyland who reorganized it into Cadillac that was then sold to GM. It took until the third try with the Model T to prove his ideas were profitable.

    Henry is the direct opposite of Louis Chevrolet (yes, THAT Chevrolet) who wanted to build luxury cars, but ousted GM founder William Durant recognized Chevrolet had the potential to be a Ford competitor. Durant partnered with Chevrolet and used its profits to buy enough shares in GM that he was able to return to the presidency of GM. Both Durant and Ford were correct in the view that the target market was an auto for the common man, but Durant was more correct in building a company that sold cars for a range of pocketbooks.

    And people wanted Henry to stop racing? The Chevrolet brothers, including Louis, were hard core racers. Louis and his brother Gaston raced in early Indianapolis 500s, and Gaston won the 1920 Indianapolis 500 in a car he and his brother designed and built. It took Gaston’s death in a racing accident to get Louis to stop racing.

    Replies: @JMcG

    Thank you, there’s often a nugget of gold in these comment threads.

    • Thanks: mmack
  103. Fletcher was also known to hang around intellectual elites like Anita Hill and Henry Louis Gates Jr

    “AA hack government lawyers like Anita Hill..”

    Fixed it.

  104. ” intellectual elites like Anita Hill and Henry Louis Gates Jr.,”

    they wrote this with a straight face?

  105. This might interest you, from Ford’s My Life and Work:

    When it was found that an automobile really could go and several makers started to put out cars, the immediate query was as to which would go fastest. It was a curious but natural development — that racing idea. I never thought anything of racing, but the public refused to consider the automobile in any light other than as a fast toy. Therefore later we had to race. The industry was held back by this initial racing slant, for the attention of the makers was diverted to making fast rather than good cars. It was a business for speculators.

  106. @Buffalo Joe
    Dear Ms Pao, having a penis does not empower you to defraud people and having a vagina does not allow you to avoid prosecution for defrauding people but you know this. And, as to Buddy Fleetcher living in his car, remember you can sleep in a car or a house, but you can't drive your house.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    And, as to Buddy Fleetcher living in his car, remember you can sleep in a car or a house, but you can’t drive your house.

    Steven Wright can:

    Wright is half-Italian, which is why he looks like Vincent Schiavelli without Marfan’s syndrome.

  107. @Almost Missouri
    @Jack D


    There are no standards in the non-profit business as to how much of the money that you raise has to actually be devoted to charitable activities as opposed to fund raising or paying executive salaries.
     
    I was at a budget meeting for the fundraising department of a nonprofit where I worked. The fundraiser's presentation was all about about how much money they had raised for the organization and all the glossy ways they had done it. At the end of the presentation, they asked if there were any questions. No one raised any. Since the fundraiser had never said what their budget was (in a "budget meeting"), I raised my hand and asked that.

    "Oo," said the fundraiser looking surprised by the question as she hurriedly riffled through her papers, "aaaah ... that would be $x." [where x is a number about one third more than the amount of money they had just spent the meeting bragging about having raised]

    I looked around the room to see if anyone else understood the significance of the juxtaposition of these two numbers, but everyone was just nodding and smiling at the fundraiser.

    That was the last budget meeting I ever went to there. I left shortly afterwards.

    Incidentally, before this meeting, I had noticed that despite the organization's hairshirted reputation (in some ways deserved), that the the admin building's parking lot had a some expensive hardware in it. In every case where I could connect the pricey wheels to an owner, it always turned out to be someone in the fundraising department. Well, that mystery was solved anyway.

    The really sad part for that charity was that most of their donations came from long-established donors who would send a check every year no matter what, so a monkey could have "raised" most of their donations any given year at zero cost. Instead they hired a bunch of pro grifters who took all their donation money plus part of their operating funds, and bought fancy cars and whatnot before rotating out. Dumb. Dumb. Dumb. Sad. Dumb.

    Replies: @Jack D, @Anonymous, @LP5

    There are no standards in the non-profit business as to how much of the money that you raise has to actually be devoted to charitable activities as opposed to fund raising or paying executive salaries.

    There is a non-profit fundraising cottage industry that gets by because people don’t ask questions.

    Here is one of my favorite instances:
    Non-profit applies for and gets a government grant for X.
    They want to raise another .5X.
    Grifter fundraiser consultant makes a slick presentation with obfuscation of fees.
    Said fees are based on 1.5X, even though X was essentially free and procured prior to Grifter input.
    Those fees total over 40% of the new funds, so a pretty sweet return.

    Where are the customer’s yachts, or nice cars?

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS
PastClassics
The Shaping Event of Our Modern World
The Hidden Information in Our Government Archives
Analyzing the History of a Controversial Movement
The unspoken statistical reality of urban crime over the last quarter century.
How America was neoconned into World War IV