Rendered at 13:51:28 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) with Cloudflare Workers.
ofirg 32 minutes ago [-]
Why would the documentary be deceiving you? The documentary has no reason to deceive you. The document is just trying to reach out to you and connect with you as a person. Why would it be deceiving you? It has no reason to be deceiving you.
4 minutes ago [-]
noah_buddy 18 minutes ago [-]
Any documentary (worth its salt) has a specific view it’s pushing that’s implicit to the stories told, the editing, etc.
The easiest demonstrative example is looking at someone like Leni Riefenstahl‘s work.
junon 16 minutes ago [-]
(the GP comment is making a joke; go take a look at the first teaser for You Can See Everything)
kingleopold 28 minutes ago [-]
PR and propaganda are not just about corporates and companies.
I just watched this movie tonight and it's one of those where I feel like everyone else saw a different film. For me it was too little butter spread over too much bread. All the interesting parts of the Holmes/Theranos story have been explored, so all that's left is her personal life with her new partner who's also a weirdo.
At best I can say that it makes you think about things like deceit and honesty/accuracy in media, but it definitely didn't blow my mind like it apparently did for this author. After 3 hours I was just exhausted from watching these peoples' tortuous attempts to avoid giving a direct answer to any question.
Betelbuddy 4 hours ago [-]
>> It definitely didn't blow my mind like it apparently did for this author.
It did for the author because this is a service she provides. To even suggest that Elizabeth Holmes didn't really harm anyone because she in prison for investor fraud, and then have the nerve to call that distinction "nuance", is absurd.
Theranos generated around 7.8 million test results for Arizona consumers alone. Of those, roughly 834,000 had to be voided or corrected. These were real people getting medical information they relied on. Some received terrifying and incorrect indications of prostate cancer. Pregnant women received results suggesting they were miscarrying when they weren't.
It's like claiming a blood bank supervisor didn't put patients at risk by giving them incompatible blood transfusions, simply because the state only managed to prosecute them for pirating the inventory software they were using.
She did it before for Paul Logan and Anthony Scaramucci, and now is softening the road for Elizabeth Holmes pardon.
She did the same in her newsletter for Logan Paul when he was trying to move beyond his image as a toxic YouTube prankster, and spent months embedded with him and his brother.
Then did the same for Anthony Scaramucci, when he had to rebuild his credibility in the investment world, as his bitcoin hedge fund was about to go nowhere. Pompliano opens with his fascination with astrology. Astrology!
Call monsters what they are. The victims deserve it.
johndhi 2 minutes ago [-]
Some good points here except:
It is outrageous to say an early stage company giving inaccurate diagnostics "is like" giving patients incompatible blood transfusions.
10-15% of people who get the wrong blood die. People who get inaccurate diagnostics get scared.
Very different and this undermines the credibility of your otherwise valid point.
JumpCrisscross 2 hours ago [-]
> Theranos generated around 7.8 million test results for Arizona consumers alone. Of those, roughly 834,000 had to be voided or corrected
I got one of these! I called my New York doctor in a panic because apparently my kidneys and liver were failing. We ordered a bunch of rush tests, they came back fine, then we did a bunch more to confirm. That was a lot of stress, wasted medical professionals' time and cost for a single person. (The only reason I didn't go straight to ER is I was doing my start-up at the time and, America being America, didn't have the best health insurance.)
I don't think my doctor reported that result as being wrong. I certainly didn't–I was too busy confronting my impending doom. So my HDHP wound up paying for not only the un-needed follow-up tests, but also for the Theranos test. (I don't remember if I paid a deductible. It was at a Walgreens.)
> She did it before for Paul Logan and Anthony Scaramucci, and now is softening the road for Elizabeth Holmes pardon
She's maintaining access to powerful people. It's a well-known problem with access journalism.
Betelbuddy 2 hours ago [-]
>> It's a well-known problem with access journalism.
Yes, CNBC is a prime example :-)
vintermann 2 hours ago [-]
That's wild. Yeah, a quick look into the background of this author leaves little doubt about what their career is.
LoFiSamurai 2 hours ago [-]
Incredible post. Thank you!
EdwardDiego 3 hours ago [-]
Great comment, thank you for centering it on the actual victims of her deceit.
Betelbuddy 2 hours ago [-]
Ian Gibbons, Theranos chief scientist was facing a deposition that threatened to expose the company technology issues. Under pressure, and fearful of losing his job, he attempted suicide and died a week later. When his grieving wife contacted Theranos, rather than receiving Holmes condolences, she received a demand for the return of company property and confidential materials...
nativeit 49 seconds ago [-]
That’s a good reminder: With scarce few exceptions, your job doesn’t actually care about you, companies and platforms aren’t your friends, and life is too short to waste it on assholes and sociopaths.
spwa4 50 minutes ago [-]
Unfortunately that's the big message the courts gave, isn't it. Elizabeth Holmes used the names of important government officials to deceive two classes of people:
a) as you point out, give wrong medical information to nearly a million people. Information they probably acted on and damaged themselves.
b) deceived investors.
ONE of these things matters to the American justice system.
Whose names did she use for that?
Henry Kissinger (former United States Secretary of State);
Jim Mattis (retired Marine Corps four-star general);
George Shultz (former United States Secretary of State);
Richard Kovacevich (former CEO of Wells Fargo);
William Perry (former United States Secretary of Defense); and
William Foege (former director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention).
These are the people that were in charge of leading the company and giving credibility to it. Needless to say all these people have not faced any kind of responsibility. They "were all deceived", in other words none of them ever checked.
3 hours ago [-]
k__ 2 hours ago [-]
Why only 830K of 7.8M?
Betelbuddy 2 hours ago [-]
The number is much higer, the 834,233 is not the total number of incorrect results. It is the number Theranos formally invalidated or revised. Theranos performed many tests using conventional laboratory equipment rather than its proprietary Edison machines. The company initially voided results from Edison devices and subsequently corrected other results. But conventional equipment did not guarantee accurate results, because Theranos also had problems with its laboratory procedures.
In November 2021, a woman named Erin Tompkins testified in Elizabeth Holmes's trial that Theranos had given her a false-positive HIV result in 2015
gyomu 5 hours ago [-]
> After 3 hours I was just exhausted from watching these peoples' tortuous attempts to avoid giving a direct answer to any question.
I’ve been around a lot of bullshitters my whole life, and my immediate reaction is to go “this person is full of shit, not worthy of my attention, kthxbye”
But I’ve noticed that most people when faced with the same person can’t help but try and figure out what makes them tick, or their redeeming qualities, or if even anything can be redeemed. It seems to be a social equivalent of “nerd sniping”; most people just have a very hard time declaring “this person is worth 0 additional seconds of my time” and actually following through.
See also ppl in toxic relationships, who will complain to their friends incessantly about how bad the other person is and how they know they need to get out of it, only to rarely get out of it.
JumpCrisscross 1 hours ago [-]
I think this can go too far in the opposite direction. Sometimes an entirely foreign concept sounds like bullshit at first contact. Or someone speaking a bit incoherently–good people can get confused or get struck by a thunderbolt of stupidity from time to time.
So ceteris paribus, yes, cut off bullshitters. But context matters. If a friend of a good friend is striking me as stupid, I'm going to make damn sure that's what's happening versus me misunderstanding them (or catching them at a bad moment).
MrGilbert 5 hours ago [-]
> most people just have a very hard time declaring “this person is worth 0 additional seconds of my time” and actually following through.
I think that's what "setting boundaries" is about: Standing your own ground, and decide: "Not worth my time and energy.", yet still believe in the good in people. I think even bad people have something good in them. It's just not healthy to figure it out for me, once the manipulative (or bad) habits have surfaced.
strbean 5 hours ago [-]
> or their redeeming qualities
I can't stand this. Most people who suck aren't an onion. They just suck. Or there is a nice layer under that, and then beneath that a core of suck.
techblueberry 26 minutes ago [-]
Maybe too many people don't see it this way an it ends up backfiring, but I actually think it's important to "humanize" 'bad' people and show their 'redeeming' qualities -
I think it's important to inoculate yourself against presentation. Like, sure, now we know that Elizabeth Holmes was evil, an we can be binary about it - but would it have easier to be more critical of her rise if we could look past her apparent positive qualities?
close04 4 hours ago [-]
Reminder to everyone that an onion is an onion all the way to the core. Every layer is more eye sting for the peeler.
rolosa 4 hours ago [-]
I value my time. I'm not going to peel all the way down if I don't think it's worth my time.
sunrunner 2 hours ago [-]
So Shrek was teaching people the wrong idea?
selimthegrim 2 hours ago [-]
The core does tend to rot first
sevenseacat 5 hours ago [-]
I think its because the constant bullshitting is behaviour that is so foreign to us, we feel a curiosity about it, a need to understand it.
cogman10 3 hours ago [-]
Bullshitters bullshit for personal gain and amusement.
Most people aren't like that, a few are.
It becomes a lot less interesting and curiosity invoking when you have such a bullshitter in your life. The interaction becomes "the lied about this, so what did they really mean". For example, my bullshitter will often have car troubles, a dead pet (that comes back to life) or medical issues whenever they don't want to show up to a family event.
I can promise you there's really nothing more deep to understand beyond the fact that they've become overly comfortable with using lies to get what they want.
caminante 7 minutes ago [-]
That's why the cult/con documentaries like Theranos are so popular.
Same formula across country, culture, time and people keep getting sucked in.
TheOtherHobbes 4 hours ago [-]
That's a strategy when it's personal. But it's catastrophic when Bullshiter Mode doesn't just define a person, it defines an entire industry - arguably the politics and economics of entire countries - and the only way to give it zero attention is to go fully off-grid and live like a hermit.
Holmes is interesting because she's not a freak or a one-off. She's pretty much a generic tech startup CEO billionaire wannabe, finance industry person, and/or familiar political archetype - arguably more extreme than most, but there's nothing truly exotic about the DNA here.
JohnBooty 2 hours ago [-]
Few counterpoints:
Most people, even toxic people, do have positive qualities.
At the most basic strategic level, it’s vital to recognize this so that we don’t fall for such people in the future. It’s sooooo easy to say “well so and so can’t be too toxic… I mean, they volunteer at the soup kitchen on weekends” or whatever. That’s part of how they (intentionally or unintentionally) lure you in. All very valuable for engineer-types, who may tend to be very literal in actions and their interpretations of others’ actions.
At a more nuanced strategic level, it’s good to recognize that since all people are a mix of positive and negative traits, How can we coexist with such people in cases when we can’t avoid it? It’s simplistic to say “just avoid toxic people” — it’s a good “north star” but is often impossible or impractical. e.g. it’s convenient to say “just cut toxic family members out of your life” and sometimes it’s the right call, but I’ve heard people toss that phrase around like it’s nothing and wow it’s heartbreakingly glib.
I think it’s also valuable for introspective purposes. It’s very easy to fall into the mindset of “well, I’m a good person because of X, Y, and Z” while blinding ourselves to negative ways in which we affect others.
Finally, yeah, sure — I admit it. I like a puzzle. Specifically the puzzle of figuring out if these people believe their own bullshit!
(For the record, I thought this movie was incredible, though HN’s collective “meh” on this thread was expected)
icantevenhold 2 hours ago [-]
I found it a bit tough how many people in this thread are able to instantly spot people who are “bad” or “suck” and immediately cease all interaction and cut them out of their lives completely.
We must be living in very different worlds; in my experience these things are never that black&white.
I do agree that it’s very important to know where your boundaries are in life and stand firm on them; and you don’t need to keep people in your life who are a bad influence.
It’s just not as easy to make that distinction as some of the comments itt make it out to be …
squishington 52 minutes ago [-]
It's important to be able to recognise behavioural patterns that suggest a narcissistic personality. Once you've established that, you need accept they won't change, because personality doesn't change, it's a stable pattern. Some people can spot these patterns due to long life experiences and know cutting out is the only option that leads to growth.
throw9383908 11 minutes ago [-]
It is not about "what you miss" by avoiding "toxic" people like Elizabet Holmes. Bad people like her are dangerous! She killed several people, by providing fake medical tests!
> like a puzzle... people believe their own bullshit!
Most people do not have this kind of resources.
scotty79 3 hours ago [-]
> I’ve been around a lot of bullshitters my whole life, and my immediate reaction is to go “this person is full of shit, not worthy of my attention, kthxbye”
I have something like that, but not (just?) for people. When I read (or listen to) something I very often fairly quickly recognize meta signs of bs and go 'kthxbye'. I call it bullshit filter and I am often surprised that some, even fairly intelligent, people can have suprinsingly weak one. As for morbid curiosity towards bs, I have very little. I'm even afraid that being too curious about it might be detrimental so I'm keeping my distance even when I engage somewhat.
rrr_oh_man 5 hours ago [-]
> But I’ve noticed that most people when faced with the same person can’t help but try and figure out what makes them tick, or their redeeming qualities, or if even anything can be redeemed. It seems to be a social equivalent of “nerd sniping”; most people just have a very hard time declaring “this person is worth 0 additional seconds of my time” and actually following through.
I don't think I've ever seen anyone put this into words.
Thank you. A very compelling thought.
IshKebab 5 hours ago [-]
I've only met one constant bullshitter in my life and unfortunately I worked with him so couldn't just leave. The thing that blew my mind was that nobody else seemed to care, at all. I get that it takes a significant amount of social capital to call out a bullshitter, especially at work... but still.. you don't have to believe them. Very weird.
squidmaster 4 hours ago [-]
When you're working with a bullshitter and can't just leave, what use is there in performative caring? Your coworkers may have still cared, privately, but actively complaining about it, presuming boss man doesn't care anyway, is just pissing into the wind. You may as well accept that he's a bullshitter and get over it. Some people are like that and it doesn't help you to spend your time seething over it.
If you can get him fired then go for it. Otherwise, you're only harming yourself by letting yourself dwell on it. As for believing him; when my coworker starts rambling about the time the Navy seals came to him for help, I just say "wow man, crazy". I don't believe him, but neither do I confront it. Why bother? I'm not being paid to call out his dumb lies. This is probably what your other coworkers were thinking.
watwut 2 hours ago [-]
Caring and "seething" over it helps helps you to not become like them, not to adopt their projected views, not to blame their victims or otherwise contributing to the harm.
Conversely, actively complaining about it prevents enabling group thing to form. It helps victims identify the situation sooner, to leave of better protect themselves.
CookieCrisp 2 hours ago [-]
I’m not worried about becoming like them, and I have never once seen complaining about them or calling them out work positively for the person doing it. But, I’ve found acting confused and asking them for more detailed information has helped.
watwut 40 minutes ago [-]
My comment was not about person doing it, but what doing it does to victims.
squidmaster 2 hours ago [-]
Maybe so, but its a mistake to assume others are falling for it just because they don't outwardly react to it. Ignoring it is the low-effort route that gets you through the day, so most people will usually do that.
icantevenhold 1 hours ago [-]
Personally when I ignore things that I feel are wrong it just gnaws on me constantly.
I agree that it’s the low-effort route but if I had an extreme bullshitter I had to work with on a daily basis would need to do something about it or switch jobs.
Doesn’t mean I constantly need to call out ever single bit of untruth; like so many things it’s a spectrum
deebosong 2 hours ago [-]
True. The practical reality is that it causes colleagues to divert limited resources to address this web of lies. No one wants to do that unless you're a fiend for emotional drama (practically speaking, some are desperate to gather any and all ammo to use against each other). For everyone else, it's emotional labor. And no one is getting paid to do emotional labor (unless that's the unspoken agreement that isn't written in their job descriptions).
If you really wanna out a liar and come out clean on the other end, it's just so much documentation, emotional decision trees, how to phrase & frame & present things, etc. etc. etc.
Often, the compulsive liar will out themselves, create their own demise, or be enabled and further empowered by a toxic system that rewards such types (which if possible, you'd wanna get out of ASAP because prolonged exposure leaves lasting damage to anyone in such systems).
watwut 41 minutes ago [-]
Yes most people either show nothing and later end up believing at least portion of lies ... or believe lies.
But, you acted as if there was something wrong with those who dont. And as if there was some higher value in enabling and playing along. I disagree with both.
JohnBooty 2 hours ago [-]
I think that’s a great reason to get into the psychology of bullshitters, or at least get really familiar with their tactics. You are going to have a lot of situations in your life when you can’t just flip a switch and get rid of them.
narrator 1 hours ago [-]
These sorts of people push people's buttons and lie and get what they want and then they wind up in civil or criminal litigation. They think this is just another people problem that they can lie and manipulate their way through, but the judge sees these kinds of people all day in their courtroom because they often wind up getting sued or prosecuted. They finally meet someone who doesn't expect them to be a normal "good person" and they face the first real consequences they can't just power through.
joaquieneCnix 3 hours ago [-]
note, especially in cases like Holmes et al., how these people are full of shit for the sake of being full of shit. they are not just deceptive for their own sake but for the "et al."s sake, too, often enough just being the one thrown or throwing themselves under the bus to distract from or obscure what's going on "generally" or "currently, specifically" in that industry or it's supply chain and derivatives. you can spin up the whole story within the bigger picture, including "corona mass testing & sites cough cough, vaccines & boosters cough cough" and so on or look at the finer details of Holmes et al. endeavor itself and what derivatives the details "enabled" ...
it's hard to see through at first, but toxic relationships often actively obfuscate the toxicity of the social circle the partner is a--often seemingly lesser--part of ... but that's child play and toxicity or even betrayal on these levels is only "hard" if one loses more than a good conscious decade. in professional lives however, that harm is pretty much irreversible, within a single project's time frame, ... what's lost, practically non-retrievable, non-compensable ...
That whole Holmes story felt dodgy from the start. What she was gunning for was partially (recursively) done elsewhere, successfully. Then the whole Corona bit broke out and I still find myself wondering what the fuck ... but that might be a residue non-actual-conspiratorial-they-are-hiding-aliens kind of thought process that still wants to write one or the other post-they-don't-have-the-capacity-to-tap-everyone's-phone-calls and tor-exit-nodes-are-definitely-mostly-owned-by-the-same-privacy-loving-folks-who-maintain-those-8mil-lines-of-linux-and-other-distros story ...
cindyllm 3 hours ago [-]
[dead]
sublinear 4 hours ago [-]
> most people just have a very hard time declaring “this person is worth 0 additional seconds of my time”
You have to admit that shutting people out is still a defense mechanism that can backfire.
You're not immune from a skilled sociopath for doing this. They know what you're doing. The moment you turn your back is when they know they can blindside you.
It's the moment they start talking behind your back, shutting you out of conversations, undermining your work, etc. You're a lot more vulnerable when you're out of the loop. You can't assume you're stronger or smarter for trying to take the "high road". There is no high road with these people. They'll ruin everything in any way possible. They have their bases covered.
JohnBooty 2 hours ago [-]
Yeah. “Just cut bullshitters out of your life” is about as unhelpful as “Don’t get sick!” when it comes to medical advice.
Like, duh yeah that’s the goal. Do that as much as possible, but a lot of your life is going to involve dealing with these people.
On a slightly deeper level, essentially nobody is 0% or 100% bullshitter. Nearly all of humanity falls into the middle. Even the most literal, level 2+ ASD folks I’ve known were, at a minimum, cagey at times.
Terr_ 4 hours ago [-]
[dead]
crispyambulance 15 minutes ago [-]
> After 3 hours I was just exhausted...
I got a feeling that the 4 hour Musk documentary is going to be a similar kind of experience, exploring in extreme detail all the myriad ways that guy is an asshole.
a3w 5 hours ago [-]
German nerd here. I know next to nothing about "the interesting parts of the Holmes/Theranos story", is there a documentary on the facts instead of the villain somewhere?
samizdis 5 hours ago [-]
I don't know of any worthy documentary, but I have read the book "Bad Blood" [0], which I thought was thorough, well written and, to me, an excellent read.
“Bad Blood” by the journalist who broke the story while Theranos was peaking
emmelaich 3 hours ago [-]
> Tyler Shultz went to work at Theranos right out of Stanford and soon noticed that things weren't as they seemed. Lots of other employees knew there was something fishy going on, but Tyler was one of a tiny handful able to resist the mesmerizing and intimidating Elizabeth Holmes and speak out about the fraud that was putting patients at risk.
Why is this downvoted? Who are these weirdos? This is a good question.
tmerse 5 hours ago [-]
Try the book: Bad Blood: Secrets and Lies in a Silicon Valley Startup
andsoitis 1 hours ago [-]
> All the interesting parts of the Holmes/Theranos story have been explored
This is similar to the Musk doc. When everything about the person is already explored real-time in the media, there's no mystery left. There's no drama. It is almost as dull as the subject's personality and almost as vacant as the subject's morality. Hmmm, so I guess in a weird self-referential way maybe it is genius? Nah.
treetalker 2 hours ago [-]
> peoples' tortuous attempts to avoid giving a direct answer
In this case, the attempts are simultaneously tortuous, torturous, and tortious!
4 hours ago [-]
4 hours ago [-]
samschooler 9 hours ago [-]
I don't think there is any magic sauce to this movie. I saw it yesterday, and do agree (spoilers ahead) there are three acts: deception, sympathetic, puppeteer. I feel though that this article treats the movie as if its some sort of hypnosis; it's not. Its a very well put together movie that makes you question everything thats happening. I and others came out of it largely questioning:
A. Is she truly the most manipulative person we've ever seen
B. Largely oblivious to what's happening around her
and not:
- Is she guilty
This movie I would say does not answer those questions, nor do I think seeks to.
nicce 4 hours ago [-]
> Is she truly the most manipulative person we've ever seen
Probably no. The most manipulative are still not in the jail and are running some well-known big companies.
embedding-shape 2 hours ago [-]
Has the public at large "seen" those people though? They tend to want to stay out of the limelight, for obvious reasons.
wisty 8 hours ago [-]
I haven't seen it, but my opinion is she likely was what lawyers call "reckless", as in she should have known but didn't care (blinded by the upside and a "we'll figure it once we scale" tech attitude that works a lot better for db performance than healthcare).
Earw0rm 7 hours ago [-]
I've worked for someone very like her.
It's worse than reckless. They make not-knowing part of their operating model.
And they make sure nobody else with power and influence does too much knowing either. Silos, stay in your lane, don't ask questions about how your department's KPIs mesh with the next one over, or what conclusions might be inferred.
wisty 4 hours ago [-]
When a lawyer says "reckless" it's an extremely strong word. It doesn't mean "negligent", IANAL (and it depends on the state etc) but it's more like if you knowingly run over a pedestrian in your way, and you aren't trying to hurt them but don't care if they get hurt. And often criminal law will treat it as just a little less bad than intent.
petesergeant 2 hours ago [-]
It very much depends on where the lawyer is. What you’ve described would be more like “depraved heart” or “wicked recklessness” in jurisdictions that have it, where reckless was that you were doing 90 in a residential area. I think the point is more that the legal term “reckless” may have a specific meaning in given places.
kromokromo 7 hours ago [-]
How does this work though. At the end of the day, you can’t as a CEO say “I didn’t know” when your whole operating model is a scam.
Slow_Hand 6 hours ago [-]
Yes. So many of her replies to Nathan's questions were "I don't know" or "I don't remember" or "I don't understand" for questions that were very straightforward.
At her level of responsibility she'd better know. Whatever the case, she's either deceitful or incompetent. Neither answer is flattering or acceptable.
orwin 5 hours ago [-]
It's manufactured incompetence. You can see it a lot in companies who use a lot of subcontractors.
ashdksnndck 5 hours ago [-]
Deceitful vs delusional or incompetent matters for your legal defense, your parole hearing etc
swiftcoder 6 hours ago [-]
> At the end of the day, you can’t as a CEO say “I didn’t know” when your whole operating model is a scam.
There's always the chance one could have ridden fake-it-till-you-make-it long enough for the engineers to solve the underlying issues...
willis936 4 hours ago [-]
While far from a complete technical breakdown, Hank Green's recent video on Theranos is a good starting point. These are not serious people. The special sauce has never been the self promotion.
It is one thing to fake and misrepresent the completeness of a video game, but it is entirely another to provide false or unverified medical results to patients.
cbzbc 3 hours ago [-]
In virtually every company there are questions you intuitively know that your managers don't necessarily want to know the answers to (or at least, they only want to know the answers to them if you have a solution), usually it's something relatively trivial like minor infractions of corporate rules.
There are some leaders who are extremely good at convincing you about the importance of belief in a particular thing to the point where you avoid even thinking up those questions - if they are ever cornered (and they rarely allow it to get to that point) they will wriggle endlessly rather than responding to a line of inquiry that bursts the collective bubble.
Do they know? It's hard to argue about their internal motivations.
throwawayffffas 2 hours ago [-]
It's above reckless, in other legal systems there is a level above gross and reckless negligence where the prosecution argues not only they should have known, in fact they did know and chose to proceed anyway.
sippingabonedry 9 hours ago [-]
Does the film address that thing she does with her voice?
samschooler 9 hours ago [-]
Not at all, though she does talk slightly less like that now.
9 hours ago [-]
cm2187 8 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
Fargren 5 hours ago [-]
> As for Kamala Harris and her sudden southern accent in front of certain audiences...
I grew up in one place with a very marked accent, and moved later in life to a place with another distinct, very different accent. My accent shifts within minutes of talking with people from either place. Sometimes I'm in a room with people from both places, and my accent changes depending on who's in my field of view. This doesn't take any effort; in fact, I need to make an effort to avoid it.
This is how accents work. Our brain adapts very quickly to try to fit in.
(I grew up in Buenos Aires and now I live in Madrid)
heckelson 4 hours ago [-]
I have made a similar observation, maybe even stronger: In Lower Austria, I speak the dialect, but only 50km away in Vienna, people speak in more of a "standard German" way, I'm guessing due to the large influx of German migrants and because the dialect is considered lower-class (by the younger generations especially, who, probably due to social media, speak very Germany-esque) and I've noticed I myself also switch to a "standard German" type dialect.
It's one of those cases where cringe becomes creepy. When someone is putting on a really transparent performance, and to the rest of us it broadcasts their insecurity, and they ought to know that but don't - it's eerie, it's mired in an uncanny valley. Too much to be a joke but not enough to plausibly work. When I see her back in the day with the turtleneck and the affected voice, it gives me the willies.
That said no it is not particularly important. But striking and memorable. The voice is the most striking part but I don't think it would land with me if not for also the turtleneck and the other Jobs knockoff stuff.
socalgal2 4 hours ago [-]
To pile on, there used to by a comedy interview show in Japan. They would bring on a celebrity and have them call their mother and buzz them if they fell back into their local accent. Every star got buzzed.
The point being people have different ways of speaking to different people.
Maybe another example is Hawaiians talking to each other vs to tourists
bahmboo 7 hours ago [-]
Yes, to me that is catering to your audience. It also seems to overlap with coming back from your London trip with a British accent.
For her voice register change, where's the line or the gray area? It's a very personal human thing. I find her to be oriented around how she presents herself and how she is perceived. Then she uses her impressive talents to guide and manipulate.
I find her unnerving but also a great example of how the eyes are really part of the brain.
[edit: a lot, same general idea but composed bester[
willy_k 7 hours ago [-]
Yeah. “The eyes are the window to the soul” is true.
MrGilbert 5 hours ago [-]
I don't have an issue with a different accent, but vocal fry sounds just outright weird to me. Maybe because I'm not a native speaker, but it's giving me snobbish, crow-like vibes. I don't like it, and I don't really understand why people aim for it. A deep voice is not vocal fry. Sam Elliot has a nice deep voice. Toni Braxton has a nice deep voice. Vocal fry is none of that. It's the tramp stamp of voice.
squidmaster 4 hours ago [-]
Vocal fry being the tramp stamp of voice is such a perfect way of putting it!
5 hours ago [-]
6 hours ago [-]
serf 7 hours ago [-]
everyone has a bit of a social chameleon thing going on, but when a person is nothing but facade to the point of others being totally unable to pinpoint their actual psyche it's a flashing warning sign for a lot of people that they're a sociopath or at the very least have a lot of tendencies towards that behavior.
let's flip it on its' head; she's now seeking sympathy and understanding from the public and her voice softened: Does that aid perception of truth and honesty? It doesn't for me.
kakacik 4 hours ago [-]
No its a textbook sociopathy with all bells and whistles it brings along.
Btw rather hardcore sociopathy is the norm amongt elites who worked their own way to some small pyramid of power and/or wealth, normal balanced happy folks give up that endless chase long before since true achievements in life are hardly up there. But you can't explain this to them, you get blank stare at best or get ridiculed more probably (tried a few times, sobering experiences).
Its rather exceptional when above is not valid, and certainly shouldnt be shocking when revealed. Take top 10 companies, CEOs and whole C suite are all that, they select for their own 'kin'. Take top 100 and still most would fall there firmly, they just know how to do self PR better.
watwut 7 hours ago [-]
I agree. I dont get why people get outraged over it either. Yes, having deeper voice makes people take you more seriously. Works with students, bosses, colleagues.
Using deeper voice as a result is like putting on suit and making your hair - adjusting yourself to societal biases.
The issue with Holmes is not voice or cloth or whatever. It is fraud, lies and lack of care about harm she caused.
jimbob45 6 hours ago [-]
It goes back to the parent poster’s question of whether or not she was doing it to manipulate people or if she genuinely looked up to Steve Jobs enough to want to emulate him down to his pitch.
watwut 6 hours ago [-]
I dont buy either framing. There is nothing better about immitating Jobs.
And using deeper voice is no worsr then putting on cloth to impress. Or using makeup to impress.
If people are irrationally taking deeper voices more serious, using deeper voice is not some kind of evil manipulation. People with higher pitch are not unserious, only treated that way a bit more.
Your deeper voice is not making you more valid or serious in any way. Yes, it is advantage. It is ok to mimic it to get equal advantage.
globular-toast 5 hours ago [-]
It's because it's creepy. Simple as that really.
UltraSane 4 hours ago [-]
Because she faked her deeper voice and choosing to do that constantly is very creepy and weird.
Pengtuzi 6 hours ago [-]
> As for Kamala Harris and her sudden southern accent in front of certain audiences...
Care to finish that thought?
esikich 5 hours ago [-]
Best take of the movie here. When the whole crew met with them before production, Nathan's idea to say "fuck it, let's just see how they do business" was the right call and might show she actually may not have known as much as you'd think, but it's fully intentional to the point of complete insanity.
roncesvalles 8 hours ago [-]
I think if you're stuck on that question, her manipulation poked through the silver screen and worked on you.
To me the subtext of the movie was that a sociopath's manipulation is so strong that even against the heavy counterforce of the filmmaker's bias, it makes it through. I agree with TFA's general premise that the film forces you to confront how easy it is to deceive you -- but it's not the filmmaker who's doing the deceiving. Sociopathic manipulation is about sparking doubt. Gaslighters don't need to prove anything, they just need to plant a "but what if" in some corner of your mind. The fact that the author felt compelled to write TFA at all is ironically a product of that manipulative power.
Another way to think of it is: the documentary makes you think whether, if you were in the room with her in the years that Theranos was operating, would you have fallen for it? If you feel the need to write apologia after watching a documentary that's basically a hit piece, you know the answer.
drayfield 6 hours ago [-]
It won't deceive me, I went to one of Canada's top business schools and got really good grades.
ndsipa_pomu 1 hours ago [-]
I'm not sure how I'll react to watching this film, so I hired some actors and built a fake cinema to see how I'd react
impish9208 3 hours ago [-]
But do you now help struggling small businesses make it in this competitive world?
devilsdata 3 hours ago [-]
Is this comment satirical? I don't get the reference.
> My name is Nathan Fielder, and I graduated from one of Canada's top business schools with really good grades.
It's the opening line of the directors previous TV shows
3abiton 3 hours ago [-]
He rehearsed it.
jdorfman 8 hours ago [-]
No one including my wife was interested in seeing it so I went by myself. It was long, but interesting. The author hits the nail on the head:
“You sit there believing you’re watching a documentary about a woman who deceived the world, only to discover that you’re also watching a demonstration of how easy it is to deceive you.”
I couldn’t agree more.
zeraholladay 3 hours ago [-]
I haven't seen the documentary, but I have a background in media and art. There are a couple of ways I could understand this.
The first is the general public's lack of understanding of documentaries as an art form. Documentaries are essentially narratives presented as unfiltered reality ("facts"). Most folks don't truly understand this, or they lose sight of it through suspension of disbelief. That is, they don't know or forget about the film crew, editing, framing, and other artistic choices that form what they see. The illusion becomes invisible; they see only "facts" rather than a constructed narrative designed to guide their interpretation.
Second, filmmakers often use deception as an artistic device in documentaries. Mockumentaries are a pretty clear example of subverting the conventions of documentary filmmaking. It's a bit meta for most folks, so I could see how someone without much media literacy might totally miss this. But it's definitely a very interesting artistic choice given the subject matter.
yubblegum 2 hours ago [-]
The achiles heel of the documentaries as a form of propaganda & psyops (aka "narratives presented as reality") is that they have a profound dependence on aural cues for manipulating the audiance. It is difficult to be subtle regarding that intent when sound is involved.
So pay attention to the sound track and adjust your "suspension of disbelief" accordingly.
grvdrm 36 minutes ago [-]
In my experience with Fielder material, the only truth is what you said. I never know if what I see and hear is real or some flavor (if not entirely) acting.
esikich 7 hours ago [-]
What was deceitful about it?
lelanthran 6 hours ago [-]
I had the same question for the author of the article, but it's understandable that people are going to be cagey answering this question because they may not want to give away spoilers.
shiandow 5 hours ago [-]
To a documentary?
If anything that's the part that convinces me it's more than just a documentary, the fact that people apparently don't want to spoil what happens.
junon 10 minutes ago [-]
Well, it's both. We have all the public facts about Theranos. Nathan Fielder got to live with them for a period of time. That's not public information. It's still a documentary.
lelanthran 5 hours ago [-]
> To a documentary?
Well, yes. We know the plot, but we don't know in what light the movie casts here, and how they do it.
tannertech 5 hours ago [-]
Spoiler she goes to prison
EdwardDiego 3 hours ago [-]
OMG you ruined it!!!!
(/s in case it's necessary)
inquirerGeneral 7 hours ago [-]
[dead]
TZubiri 3 hours ago [-]
It's not a particularly strong value proposition.
If I buy a security product, and the seller sends me nothing, therefore showing how easy it is to scam me. Are they somehow less of a scammer, did I actually buy anything of value? Are they raising awareness of the problem? Or are they just the problem?
jackmott42 1 hours ago [-]
Neither you nor the author are saying how you were deceived.
I think neither of you are being genuine
Both just apologists for obvious scumbags
zug_zug 56 minutes ago [-]
It's a worthy movie, plays with form, true to Fielder's style.
However I strongly disagree with the author of this post. The one thing it does wrong is under-emphasizes how much hard evidence there is the Holmes personally did serious crimes:
1. Concealed use of competitor's machines since she knew there machines weren't capable.
2. Fabricated military contracts and endorsements.
3. Knowingly presented widely inflated revenue projections to investors.
4. Explicitly admitted in court to forging reports using the letterhead and logos of major pharmaceutical companies without their permission
5. There's text messages, internal emails, and firsthand whistleblower testimony—proving that Elizabeth Holmes and her chief operating officer, Sunny Balwani, orchestrated a ruthless campaign to silence anyone who tried to expose the fraud.
If anything the movie tries to let Holmes dupe you into forgetting this. Frankly the fact that SHE invited NATHAN to film this makes me think she was trying to use her baby as a way to garner sympathy and whitewash her life (presumably not really understanding his work).
nanolith 9 hours ago [-]
I saw the movie Friday night. It is a mind job. You'll walk away with more questions than answers.
Without spoiling the movie, it's possible for people to be multiple things at once. That doesn't excuse what Elizabeth Holmes did or explain what others in her circle may be guilty of. The movie is a wild ride.
charles_f 8 hours ago [-]
> That doesn't excuse what Elizabeth Holmes did or explain what others in her circle may be guilty of.
Thanks!
Surely the documentaries are made in a way that's depicts that very accentued, manipulative, borderline psychopathic person. This is likely more than she was in real life. She might even have been motivated by genuine will to improve the diagnostics field. So yeah you might be "deceived" by these docudramas.
I fear that this kind of poetic write-up muddies the water into "oh, maybe things are more nuanced, and played on her weird personality and background to make things look worse, maybe it wasn't so bad".
People got misdiagnosed and suffered directly because of her. She's every bit guilty of that, as deserving of a harsh judgement as any person directly causing that kind of harm.
Earw0rm 7 hours ago [-]
This.
Accountability.
fellowniusmonk 5 hours ago [-]
Maybe it's just because I've been around a bunch of people in startup circles, seaking angel and vc, etc and myself raised and had exits and been deposed in highly contentious situations.
Holmes doesn't talk like any innocent person has ever talked. Period. Not even like a naive rube either.
She explicitly initiated this whole thing as a narrative exercise and she just had to stick to the script for what, 45 days? While letting herself feel the genuine self pity all these types of people feel when they are experiencing the consequences for their actions instead of being able to foist them onto someone else?
Her only path forward is to FULLY commit to the bit as a way of deceiving the credulous, even a moment of cynicism and the whole thing falls apart.
Now, did she in fact succeed in that or was it a choice to show no cracks in the facade because it made a more engaging movie?
News flash, I love his media but Nathan Fielder is a monster as well he's my favorite monster but let's not pretend. We can just hold both things to be true instead of engaging in cognitive dissonance.
Other than the children (and that one flatulent horse) everyone involved in this is a monster, and the only way to hide that fact is to ensure the ending is ambiguous, otherwise it just feels like non-transcendent tabloid pap profiting off of bad behavior.
There is goodness, and people attempting to increase goodness and it looks and talks nothing like any of these people.
willis936 4 hours ago [-]
What actions make Nathan and Amanda monstrous to you?
ksymph 9 hours ago [-]
This article falls into the same trap, I dunno what to call them, artsy-upper-class-society-and-film reviewers often do; writing vague yet meaningful-sounding things about the obvious subtext of a movie as if it was a revelation, yet without any specific observations about it.
Yes, this is a documentary about a person. And how the documentary is presented will color your perspective of the person. This should (hopefully) be apparent to anyone who's watched a documentary about a person before.
But how does it do it? What tools does it use to that effect? I appreciate that this film remains relatively neutral/ambiguous, but what makes this unique from other documentaries that deal with ambiguous subject matter?
nlitened 7 hours ago [-]
> But how does it do it? What tools does it use to that effect? I appreciate that this film remains relatively neutral/ambiguous, but what makes this unique from other documentaries that deal with ambiguous subject matter?
If you’re that interested in getting these answers, you probably should watch the film
emptysongglass 1 hours ago [-]
Unfortunately, it has such a limited release that most people who want to watch it outside North America won't be able to. No one has been able to explain why it has had such a limited release.
embedding-shape 27 minutes ago [-]
Seems like most documentaries from my point of view in Spain. Seems we won't be able to see this in cinemas until February sometime, and before that it'll probably be available via other channels. In the end, most interested will have seen it before February already, so when times come around, not that many people see it. So the cinemas adjust future viewings since not that many end up seeing them, as it takes so long time to arrive here.
Been like this with most mainstream documentaries like this one.
namenotrequired 5 hours ago [-]
The article makes it clear that most people didn’t get out of the movie what the author got out of it
moffkalast 6 hours ago [-]
Nah, that would never work.
whilenot-dev 8 hours ago [-]
> this film remains relatively neutral/ambiguous [...] with ambiguous subject matter?
There's a big difference in ambiguousness and ambivalence, especially in documentaries. "Ambiguousness" represents an uncertain logical conclusion, whereas "ambivalence" stands in for (the strength of) conflicting forces.
I'd wager that an ambiguous documentary would be close to being unwatchable, and I can't remember that I've seen any. Since I've yet to see You Can See Everything, unfortunately I can't comment about it in any way.
comradesmith 8 hours ago [-]
Maybe just for not spoilers?
hnlmorg 7 hours ago [-]
If you’re watching this film, you likely already know who Elizabeth Holmes is. There isn’t going to be any Sixth Sense style plot twists.
arjie 7 hours ago [-]
Without having watched the film, I'm sure they can make it look like Sunny Balwani was the guy in charge, or something like that. I don't even know the whole story of Theranos and never followed it with much interest - startup scams are a dime-a-dozen. HP's acquisition of Autonomy always struck me as such a tale: CFO takes the fall for CEO and CTO for a $11 b acquisition that a few years later was worth a tenth because of accounting fraud and when he gets out the CEO gives him a sinecure; then the week of CEO and CTO acquittal the latter gets killed in a bicycling accident and the former dies when a tornado sinks his yacht.
Sam Bankman-Fried and Elizabeth Holmes are interesting characters, true, but there's so much nuts in tech, it's just fertile ground for stories.
watwut 6 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
rafaeltorres 3 hours ago [-]
I’ve watched the film. There are things that happen during the filming of it, involving the people making the project, that I would indeed classify as big spoilers and knowing them beforehand would lessen the experience.
DuperPower 7 hours ago [-]
besides the topic that is being explored is deception so its expected the documentary Will use a rethorical or film technique that has some connection to that theme of deception?
assimpleaspossi 35 minutes ago [-]
There was a movie, maybe on Netflix, about Holmes not too long ago. I was surprised to see this movie coming out because I thought that one was pretty well done and covered everything this movie might (I have not seen this one).
Has anyone else seen both and can they comment on the differences?
n1b0m 26 minutes ago [-]
The previous documentary focused on Theranos’s downfall, the mechanics of the fraud, the fake technology, and investigative journalism. It featured archival footage only as Holmes declined interviews and retained tight media control.
This new one focuses on Elizabeth Holmes's personal life, her mindset right before going to prison, and her ongoing insistence on her own reality. It has direct, intimate access and was filmed inside her home with her partner Billy Evans and their children in the 34 days leading up to her prison sentence.
barapa 39 minutes ago [-]
This article is devoid of content
orsenthil 1 hours ago [-]
I haven't watched the movie yet. I've read the book too. I want to read the book and then watch the movie.
The fact that it is documentary, and is being marketed along the lines of a block-buster on X with memes should have raised eye-brows. There are lot of genuinely good documentaries out there, they all are left to be discovered, and people discover them. But this one, was/is being marketed as must-watch documentary, and with no reference to the book bad blood?
nullocator 1 hours ago [-]
Why would the documentary reference a book that it has nothing to do with? It's not an adaptation of prior works on Holmes or Theranos. You Can See Everything is something else all together.
muglug 9 hours ago [-]
Everything you watch, documentary and narrative alike, attempts to shape your understanding of events through the director's lens.
tannertech 5 hours ago [-]
It is fascinating to see so many comments defending Holmes. Are these even real people?
lovich 3 hours ago [-]
“Forget it Jake, it’s Chinatown”
You’re on ycombinator, a forum for startups. A non zero amount of people here would do exactly what Holmes did for money.
embedding-shape 25 minutes ago [-]
> A non zero amount of people here would do exactly what Holmes did for money.
To go even further, "fake it til you make it" used to be a mantra lots of startup founders followed, and the whole story about how reddit got started with puppet-accounts to make it look busy when it was just three guys in a bedroom, was hailed as a successful strategy for growing startups.
trombuance 4 hours ago [-]
I'm surprised anyone would even assume there is a chance a Nathan Fielder "documentary" might not be deceiving. Has it gotten so bad that people consider this real reporting now?
Maybe this question is related to polls showing a significant percentage of Americans considering the likes of Colbert, Stewart, and John Oliver trustworthy news reporters btw.
mondocat 2 hours ago [-]
There’s a difference between using real news as comedy, and being deceptive about what you’re reporting. This was the Derren Brown version of a documentary.
thrownawaysz 7 hours ago [-]
>An entire theater full of grown adults was falling for it. At one point, people were shouting so loudly at the screen that I couldn’t hear the dialogue. I heard a woman yell, “Criminal!” — and it wasn’t directed at Elizabeth Holmes. I’ve never experienced anything like that in a movie theater. It was emotion, and it was visceral.
Is this a parody lol?
Maybe when I read about "cinemas are a bad experience nowadays" on american sites (reddit, HN) they mean this but I always felt that they are deceiving me.
Maybe I'm just too Asian-European because I never experienced that in any European or Far East Asian cinemas.
esikich 7 hours ago [-]
No one did anything like that in the theater I saw it in and I have a hard time believing this happened. As if she was some major figure that the avg person was familiar enough with to form an emotional opinion on. I've had to explain who she was to everyone I know and they were all kind of like "oh yeah, I remember hearing something about that."
mjg59 5 hours ago [-]
Saw it on Friday in Berkeley, and: yes, there was absolutely audience participation, and there were moments where I had to restrain myself from joining in.
EdwardDiego 3 hours ago [-]
> Berkeley
That makes sense. Berkeley is part of the same social caste Holmes exploited for investment.
JKCalhoun 2 hours ago [-]
Nah, it's because Bezerkley.
timr 2 hours ago [-]
> I heard a woman yell, “Criminal!” — and it wasn’t directed at Elizabeth Holmes. I’ve never experienced anything like that in a movie theater. It was emotion, and it was visceral.
No, that's called "obnoxious virtue signalling" and people do it all the time in places like San Francisco, Seattle and Portland. It's gross and unnecessary. Don't glorify it.
ButlerianJihad 2 hours ago [-]
I've had several awkward experiences lately, in the opposite direction.
You know how cinema is a good opportunity to sit there among several dozen strangers (at least), and enjoy a shared experience, and laugh, cry, scream, whatever you do, together?
Well, I've been to several films where nobody laughed. Like, there were at least a dozen or more other people in the audience, and there were genuinely funny parts of these films, and there was nobody else laughing in there, except me.
And I can tell you which ones: Disclosure Day, The End of Oak Street, and Digger. Now, the first two aren't comedies. But they definitely had comedic, sort of awkward bits that were obviously supposed to be LOL funny, to break the tension and establish some moods. And Digger itself, classified as a black comedy, was thoroughly hilarious, and farcical, although exceedingly awkward in some parts. And I was walking out behind two nerds and they were having an intellectual discussion of how "interesting" it was to them.
But nobody's laughing in the theater. And I am not exactly sure why. It is not long ago when I noticed that younger people were reacting and laughing much faster than I could react, for some reason. But now, the audience has simply stopped laughing altogether.
Is this unique to my experience? Anyone else in the USA noticing this? I know that not a lot of people are attending movies these days. But The Odyssey was selling out, over a month into its run. But there were no funny parts to it, I suppose.
psp99 3 hours ago [-]
American cinema is called "theatre" for a reason
Spooky23 3 hours ago [-]
People gin up this stuff up for some reason. The film supposedly had a 25 minute standing ovation as well at some film festival.
_jw 55 minutes ago [-]
That was a different film called NAZA at the Venice Film Festival.
dom96 3 hours ago [-]
Slightly off-topic, but does anyone know why A24 has not released this movie at the same time across different regions? It's really frustrating seeing so much discussion about the movie but not being able to actually see it until the end of November in the UK.
padjo 3 hours ago [-]
I'd imagine it's because they're distributing it themselves and A24 is a relatively small company.
zetazzed 9 hours ago [-]
It’s such a good movie. Go with a friend and you can spend hours picking apart the layers.
haunter 3 hours ago [-]
I wish Werner Herzog made this film. He has the ability to just let people speak their mind but also don't letting them off the hook either.
halyconWays 9 hours ago [-]
This reads like a high schooler discovering that film can manipulate you, but doesn't go any further than that.
"We like to believe that we form our opinions by gathering evidence, weighing facts, and arriving at reasonable conclusions. Be for real. No we do not."
She speaks for herself. The author then doesn't bring up a single fact, piece of evidence, or anything else besides just restating the pedestrian premise a few times. I don't share her inability to study a topic in-depth, come to a conclusion or challenge my previously held beliefs, and then pass judgment while attaching a calibrated degree of certainty to the soundness of my conviction.
mbil 2 hours ago [-]
The full quote from that para
> We like to believe that we form our opinions by gathering evidence, weighing facts, and arriving at reasonable conclusions. Be for real. No we do not. Here’s how it actually goes: We form an emotional impression first, then we build a belief around it, and then we go looking for facts that support it. This is my theory as to why we’re so divided in this country. Beliefs built on emotion are nearly impossible to reason with.
This idea is explored in depth in The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion by Jonathan Haidt.
And related David Hume quote:
> Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions
suwapat 7 hours ago [-]
For building startup, you need a story on the person who is going on the front. Example he/she from top university, worked in a big company. That is sufficient to build something with zero revenue and sell it for billions.
lopatin 7 hours ago [-]
This article is a bit too desperate to connect the subject matter to the medium.
unpopularopp 7 hours ago [-]
Checked her Twitter account yesterday (managed by her husband)
She is MAGA. That's enought to know about the topic.
The media and seemingly random persons like this stanning her is extremely weird.
jzymbaluk 6 hours ago [-]
Her X account, and how it came to be in the hands of her husband is actually a pretty major plot point in the documentary
naz 7 hours ago [-]
It's a rational play for her to be MAGA. Trump has pardoned much worse criminals simply for sucking up to him.
layer8 6 hours ago [-]
It’s rational to lack principles?
littlexsparkee 6 hours ago [-]
Like having kids while facing jailtime, it can be read as a ploy to evade responsibility. Rational has a secondary, economics meaning, i.e. selfish, utility-maximizing - whatever furthers the individual's interests.
ceejayoz 16 minutes ago [-]
Look how far it gets some people.
xdkyx 4 hours ago [-]
is self-preservation irrational?
quickthrowman 2 hours ago [-]
She had (two!) children solely to try and avoiding having to go to prison. She has no principles other than self-interest and self-preservation. It would be shocking if she didn’t attempt to curry favor with Trump for a pardon since he’s been handing them out to the wealthy like Halloween candy.
watwut 6 hours ago [-]
That motivation makes her MAGA. No different then other MAGAs.
p-e-w 6 hours ago [-]
Disagree. He has indeed pardoned many criminals, but none who was even remotely as bad as she is.
ozaark 6 hours ago [-]
The founder of Silk Road and the former Honduran president just to name 2
amanaplanacanal 1 hours ago [-]
Evidently assaulting police officers in an attempt to overthrow an election is just fine too.
esikich 7 hours ago [-]
Stanning?
Edit: looked it up. Who is stanning her? The person who wrote the article or Nathan?
yesitcan 6 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
danw1979 6 hours ago [-]
Because most of the world is
yesitcan 6 hours ago [-]
Why is most of the world anti MAGA?
nullocator 58 minutes ago [-]
Because MAGA is anti "the world"
midasz 6 hours ago [-]
the myriad of wars he started, but i don't believe this question is in earnest
2 hours ago [-]
greesil 9 hours ago [-]
You can just read Bad Blood, too, and skip the movie / hyperbole/ whatever
mjg59 5 hours ago [-]
They're incredibly different things telling different stories. One doesn't replace the other.
meherabhossain 8 hours ago [-]
This has a very interesting way of showing it to you, how easy it is to deceive us. What we see is what er believe in, but it can be very much easily used to exploit us.
xxmarkuski 5 hours ago [-]
I really want to see the movie, sadly it is not yet know when the film is gonna release in German theaters.
Actually, I am seriously considering starting my own film distribution and acquiring the rights to this film and a couple others. I would do straight to theater release, ov-only, no subtitles, no fluff.
coldfloor 8 hours ago [-]
So many comments about Holmes, I think, are missing the point. This isn't about Holmes, and neither, IMO, is the article. Like all things Nathan Fielder does, this is a movie by Nathan for Nathan. Elizabeth Holmes is just used, in every sense of the word, as a prop.
The article was written by someone who's never seen any of Nathan's other work and is apparently blown away by his skill at and unquenchable fetish for using and deceiving people. Yeah, that's his whole thing. Congrats, you just watched a documentary about psychopaths.
esikich 7 hours ago [-]
I don't think this is anything like Nathan's normal stuff. He didn't manipulate at all. He just hung around and asked really direct and obvious questions and you watched her and her husband squirm and lie.
novia 6 hours ago [-]
The thing where he said he'd gone through a break-up seemed like it could have been misleading (I don't actually know about his personal life)
EdwardDiego 3 hours ago [-]
How many people do you know who _haven't_ gone through a break-up?
I'm unsure why you'd think this was a deception, given the probability.
esikich 5 hours ago [-]
I will give you that. I wasn't sure if that was real or not.
gorfian_robot 7 hours ago [-]
sounds like the Primetime movie. good film. surely has little to do with real life.
zem 4 hours ago [-]
if I'm being honest with myself, I doubt I will ever watch this movie - I was very interested in theranos when it looked like a real technology, but once it turned out it was just another scam in an industry rife with them the whole thing just felt boring and grubby. the review, on the other hand, was a superb piece of writing, and I'm glad to have read it.
hobo123 4 hours ago [-]
"an industry rife with them"
Please do tell more. Do you mean pharma or diagnostics?
zem 3 hours ago [-]
I meant the general industry of flashy looking "health tech" devices, though perhaps it's unfair to link theranos in with some of the more consumer targeted products. but people really want to believe that silicon valley style technology can come in and solve long-standing medical issues, especially around diagnostics, and I've seen a lot of scammy products go by.
JMiao 8 hours ago [-]
“Local woman discovers Nathan For You”
prodmod 33 minutes ago [-]
Now go watch F for Fake
ur-whale 4 hours ago [-]
Worth a read about Nathan Fielder, brings a bit of context.
I'd never heard of him and this was very helpful context, thanks!
lacoolj 6 hours ago [-]
I really wanted her to spoil this movie somewhere in this article.
miguelazo 8 hours ago [-]
Has this person never seen Rashomon? Or any of the other films (even documentaries) that cleverly use different perspectives? Seems a bit breathless.
7 hours ago [-]
nomilk 5 hours ago [-]
Holmes isn't disliked for lying to investors, she's disliked for lying to patients, endangering lives.
popularrecluse 1 hours ago [-]
Yes - disliked for lying to patients, but prosecuted for lying to investors.
astura 59 minutes ago [-]
> I remember one Halloween when the Theranos scandal was at its peak, it seemed like everyone was dressed in a black turtleneck carrying tiny vials of fake blood. Holmes was everywhere.
Rolls eyes
I guess I travel in very different circles than this author.
>But the thing that often gets lost in the retelling of her story is that Holmes was actually acquitted of all four charges related to defrauding patients. She’s in prison because a jury found that she knowingly misled investors who poured more than $700 million into the startup. That’s a significant distinction
Now my eyes are getting sore from all the rolling. I don't think that fact gets "lost," and it's not a significant distinction.
I think I'm done with this article, whatever it's point is.
monster_truck 3 hours ago [-]
I've never cared for that nate dude and I don't think the behaviors his content seems to encourage is healthy or useful, I'm so sick of hearing about it already.
throw310822 5 hours ago [-]
Off topic, but as I was reading it I went through the Canon experiment- there where it says:
> each photographer was given a different description of [the same person]: a millionaire, a convict, a fisherman, an alcoholic, a psychic, and a lifesaver.
Well I looked at the pics and thought "yeah, wow, the millionaire, the convict (so obvious!), the fisherman, the alcoholic" it's really impressive! And only immediately after I saw that each picture had the caption with the supposed character and they were all scrambled- what I thought was obviously a sagacious millionaire was in fact the convict, the slightly deranged looking guy was the fisherman, the millionaire was in fact the alcoholic... Lol.
ZeroDayDreamer 29 minutes ago [-]
[dead]
nickstinemates 9 hours ago [-]
> But the thing that often gets lost in the retelling of her story is that Holmes was actually acquitted of all four charges related to defrauding patients. She’s in prison because a jury found that she knowingly misled investors who poured more than $700 million into the startup.
trying to minimize fraud? what a weird article.
malisper 8 hours ago [-]
For context for others, Holmes was acquitted of defrauding patients. A juror stated that she was acquitted because Holmes didn't directly interact with the patients. On the other hand, she did directly interact with investors, so the evidence was much clearer.
Separately, Theranos' COO and Holmes' boyfriend at the time was convicted by a separate jury for defrauding patients. Theranos also settled multiple lawsuits for ~$50M and declared bankruptcy soon after.
Earw0rm 7 hours ago [-]
Acquitted on a legal technicality, then, not in the court of accountability and consequences.
phire 9 hours ago [-]
Also, just because the jury didn't think there was enough evidence to convict her of defrauding patients (beyond reasonable doubt), doesn't mean she was innocent.
erulabs 8 hours ago [-]
It actually does. You can judge her, but she is not guilty. The more we as a society decide the justice system is just an arbitrary way of deciding who gets punished and not _the_ way of deciding if a person is or is not a criminal the more we slide towards oblivion.
If a person is found not guilty, they are not guilty. To argue otherwise is to undermine the core institution of western civilization.
EdwardDiego 3 hours ago [-]
Not guilty doesn't mean innocent. It means "guilt could not be proven", it does not mean "innocence was proven".
Seriously, this is why OJ was found liable for the murder of his wife in a civil case, as they're judged on the balance of probabilities.
And it's why people who have served time, then had a retrial ordered and then found not guilty, can be denied compensation, because decisions on compensation are also done on the balance of probabilities.
So yeah, "not guilty" != "innocent".
lazyasciiart 7 hours ago [-]
Important to note that western civilization is fundamentally ok with the knowledge that the statement issued by a jury or judge does not actually define whether a person is morally, factually or colloquially “innocent”. Disputes may be addressed c/o OJ Simpson and the Central Park 5.
robotresearcher 8 hours ago [-]
The finding is ‘not guilty’, rather than innocent. It does not mean the accused is innocent. It means they could not be proven guilty.
erulabs 8 hours ago [-]
Important to note that in the original conception of western civilization, no one is 'innocent'. This idea that you have some secret special power to sniff out a persons true heart from a distance, which is separate from a jury of a persons peers studying and debating the evidence, is at best misguided and arrogant, and at worst a pernicious threat.
willy_k 7 hours ago [-]
Don’t overcomplicate it. People are discussing their opinions of truth, using relevant terms.
shepherdjerred 7 hours ago [-]
I mostly agree with the idea, but to accept this as an absolute implies our justice system is infallible
zem 4 hours ago [-]
there is no way to argue that without also believing that the millions of people the state has tossed into prison are all guilty, which is really not something that I can do.
watwut 3 hours ago [-]
No. To argue what you argue is to play pretend stupid.
Court of law with its ability imprison people must have higher standard for the "guilty" decision. That makes it possible for rich guilty people to not be judged guilty.
You are allowed and expexted to use own brain. You can consider people guilty.
quickthrowman 2 hours ago [-]
Not guilty != innocent.
potamic 8 hours ago [-]
What gets lost more is that Balwani was convicted of defrauding patients, so it's not even like Theranos was absolved of those charges. The kicker is that the CEO and co-founder of a company that has been established to willfully defraud patients somehow managed to escape conviction.
jghn 9 hours ago [-]
Indeed. While she's not on the leaderboard of worst humans ever, she's still up there. Any whitewashing of her reputation is bogus.
add-sub-mul-div 9 hours ago [-]
This point is also clearly made in the film. Sounds like the article has nothing to say and just wants to leech off the success and attention of the doc.
siliconc0w 9 hours ago [-]
I mean in do you really have a lot of sympathy for the oligarchic tax advantaged zombie family hedge funds that made a bet and lost?
They didn't do their diligence and do kinda deserve to lose their money.
hypersoar 9 hours ago [-]
Holmes and Theranos leadership did more than defraud investors. They knowingly ran unreliable tests on actual patients. People were told they were miscarrying when they weren't, or that they had HIV when they didn't. And they drove an employee, Ian Gibbons, to suicide, then threatened his widow with a lawsuit when she talked to reporters about it.
erulabs 8 hours ago [-]
Important to note she was found not guilty of this charge.
hypersoar 8 hours ago [-]
That is not because Theranos did not commit such fraud against patients; Balwani was convicted on those charges. It's just the prosecutors were unable to prove that Holmes was culpable.
erulabs 8 hours ago [-]
You said
> Holmes ... did more than defraud investors.
Which was not proven in a court of law as judged by a jury of her peers.
hypersoar 8 hours ago [-]
You...you literally elided over the exact phrase I included in anticipation of this objection.
erulabs 8 hours ago [-]
You're conflating Holmes, Theranos and Balwani. Holmes was found not guilt of that which you accuse her of. That you also accuse others at the same time who where found guilty doesn't change that fact.
Jedd 7 hours ago [-]
You're conflating - 'Do we understand that Holmes did these things?' - with 'Were those specific charges brought against her and were they successfully prosecuted?'.
Reading John Carreyrou's book, it's pretty clear she was guilty of (lots of bad) things beyond the lone 'defrauding investor' charge that was successfully carried.
qup 6 hours ago [-]
I've done many things I wasn't found guilty of.
thereitgoes456 9 hours ago [-]
That’s true but not relevant. I have absolutely no sympathy for the rubes who thought FTX was a good place to put their money, but that doesn’t make the fraud any more OK.
dylan604 8 hours ago [-]
The people that invested their money did not make these decisions. The people running the fund did. You're victim blaming. Most people don't get a very wide choice where their money goes outside the couple of options the fund managers present. I'd also venture most people do not even look at what stocks are in the fund. They'll look at the past earnings and check the box.
moonlighter 7 hours ago [-]
[dead]
zac23or 1 hours ago [-]
[dead]
jiggawatts 9 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
klodolph 9 hours ago [-]
Doesn’t this line of debate get kind of predictable?
jiggawatts 7 hours ago [-]
It does, but that's an interesting psychological effect all by itself, where if someone keeps hearing the same -- valid! -- point over and over again, they start to discount its value.
Richard Feynman called it "normalization of deviance", but there's other names for it as well depending on the details.
I'm sure everyone has heard some variation of this before, especially in the work place.
I once got angrily shouted at by a customer because I turned up as a consultant and apparently I told them exactly what the last five consultants had said!
Well, yes, of course. It's the solution to their problem.
I regularly face variants of this at work.
"Yeah, yeah, backups are important, stop talking about it already."
"Yes, but they're still not happening and they still remain the top priority and it is madness to start a project to reformat the SAN array until backups are working!"
"That's what you said last week! You always say that!"
Etc...
There's a point where people lean into it and become purposefully contrary, making their refusal to change their opinion a permanent part of their identity as a person.
trimethylpurine 9 hours ago [-]
If you intend to engage "for fun" then you must actually engage by hearing the other side and rebutting. Otherwise you're not engaging, you're just trying to shout your assumptions louder than your opponent.
Your comment doesn't seem to exhibit any understanding of the opposing arguments.
Just offering my take of your comment as an impartial observer.
kippert6 9 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
spectraldrift 9 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
tomhow 7 hours ago [-]
Please don't post low-effort dismissals like this on HN. A comment with just two words and not even a period is not a thoughtful contribution, and the guidelines make it clear we're trying for something much better here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
sciencesama 9 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
SurfingAlpaca 9 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
slau 8 hours ago [-]
“I watched an unrelated YouTube video therefore I’m not convinced this movie is good” sure is a paradoxical level of judging a book by its cover.
I assume what you meant is that having heard about the person the movie focuses on, you have no interest in seeing more about her. Having felt entirely apathetic about Holmes since the early days of the Theranos scam, I can’t say I disagree with you.
SurfingAlpaca 4 hours ago [-]
Ye but I was saying more along the lines of I’ve already been spoiled on the plotline of what happened to Holmes. Idk if seeing the movie will be any different. Might be who knows
jamienk 8 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
ares623 8 hours ago [-]
I hate these kinds of documentaries. Even after being caught and punished, these wannabe larger than life con artists still get an exit. If school shooters shouldn't be plastered all over the news, then why are these people.
pxtail 6 hours ago [-]
Come on, just go watch the movie like everybody else, she needs your financial support
jongjong 4 hours ago [-]
This article makes a valid point and the author is much more perceptive than the average person for noticing it.
I know people who I thought were independent thinkers basically repeat media narratives whilst claiming that "I looked at all the facts and came up with my own opinion." But it was very clear that they had not looked at all the facts and only consumed news from specific mainstream media sources.
One case I remember very clearly concerns Trump Derangement Syndome; what was surprising was that when I asked this person I know "Why do you say Trump is misogynistic?" they pointed out the incident from 2016 elections when Trump made that dirty comment about "Grab them by the ..." But the irony is that the person I was taking to had said worse, mysogynistic jokes in the past! And they definitely don't consider themselves a mysogynist... And I don't either. Sometimes people say things for shock value but they don't believe them. It matters a lot if something is a one-off or if it's a pattern. You can't say someone's is anything based on something they said a couple of times; someone who is truly a mysogynist or a racist or an elitist or whatever would keep coming back to the same ideas over and over. If someone says something or does something offputting once a year, it's kind of insane to assign a label to the person based on it... As if that one thing they almost never say is part of their identity.
The media and films are are really good at selectively showing us a few pieces out of context and convincing us that it's a pattern of behavior and fully characterizes the person. Just pick the 10 worst things a person said in the course of a year on their worst days and you can make them look like the devil.
EdwardDiego 3 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
novia 6 hours ago [-]
I ship Nathan and Holmes
jtrn 7 hours ago [-]
Most of the things that get posted here are deceiving. It's just that people care to deconstruct why it's deceiving when it aligns with their biases.
The easiest demonstrative example is looking at someone like Leni Riefenstahl‘s work.
At best I can say that it makes you think about things like deceit and honesty/accuracy in media, but it definitely didn't blow my mind like it apparently did for this author. After 3 hours I was just exhausted from watching these peoples' tortuous attempts to avoid giving a direct answer to any question.
It did for the author because this is a service she provides. To even suggest that Elizabeth Holmes didn't really harm anyone because she in prison for investor fraud, and then have the nerve to call that distinction "nuance", is absurd.
Theranos generated around 7.8 million test results for Arizona consumers alone. Of those, roughly 834,000 had to be voided or corrected. These were real people getting medical information they relied on. Some received terrifying and incorrect indications of prostate cancer. Pregnant women received results suggesting they were miscarrying when they weren't.
It's like claiming a blood bank supervisor didn't put patients at risk by giving them incompatible blood transfusions, simply because the state only managed to prosecute them for pirating the inventory software they were using.
She did it before for Paul Logan and Anthony Scaramucci, and now is softening the road for Elizabeth Holmes pardon.
She did the same in her newsletter for Logan Paul when he was trying to move beyond his image as a toxic YouTube prankster, and spent months embedded with him and his brother.
Then did the same for Anthony Scaramucci, when he had to rebuild his credibility in the investment world, as his bitcoin hedge fund was about to go nowhere. Pompliano opens with his fascination with astrology. Astrology!
Call monsters what they are. The victims deserve it.
It is outrageous to say an early stage company giving inaccurate diagnostics "is like" giving patients incompatible blood transfusions.
10-15% of people who get the wrong blood die. People who get inaccurate diagnostics get scared.
Very different and this undermines the credibility of your otherwise valid point.
I got one of these! I called my New York doctor in a panic because apparently my kidneys and liver were failing. We ordered a bunch of rush tests, they came back fine, then we did a bunch more to confirm. That was a lot of stress, wasted medical professionals' time and cost for a single person. (The only reason I didn't go straight to ER is I was doing my start-up at the time and, America being America, didn't have the best health insurance.)
I don't think my doctor reported that result as being wrong. I certainly didn't–I was too busy confronting my impending doom. So my HDHP wound up paying for not only the un-needed follow-up tests, but also for the Theranos test. (I don't remember if I paid a deductible. It was at a Walgreens.)
> She did it before for Paul Logan and Anthony Scaramucci, and now is softening the road for Elizabeth Holmes pardon
She's maintaining access to powerful people. It's a well-known problem with access journalism.
Yes, CNBC is a prime example :-)
a) as you point out, give wrong medical information to nearly a million people. Information they probably acted on and damaged themselves.
b) deceived investors.
ONE of these things matters to the American justice system.
Whose names did she use for that?
These are the people that were in charge of leading the company and giving credibility to it. Needless to say all these people have not faced any kind of responsibility. They "were all deceived", in other words none of them ever checked.In November 2021, a woman named Erin Tompkins testified in Elizabeth Holmes's trial that Theranos had given her a false-positive HIV result in 2015
I’ve been around a lot of bullshitters my whole life, and my immediate reaction is to go “this person is full of shit, not worthy of my attention, kthxbye”
But I’ve noticed that most people when faced with the same person can’t help but try and figure out what makes them tick, or their redeeming qualities, or if even anything can be redeemed. It seems to be a social equivalent of “nerd sniping”; most people just have a very hard time declaring “this person is worth 0 additional seconds of my time” and actually following through.
See also ppl in toxic relationships, who will complain to their friends incessantly about how bad the other person is and how they know they need to get out of it, only to rarely get out of it.
So ceteris paribus, yes, cut off bullshitters. But context matters. If a friend of a good friend is striking me as stupid, I'm going to make damn sure that's what's happening versus me misunderstanding them (or catching them at a bad moment).
I think that's what "setting boundaries" is about: Standing your own ground, and decide: "Not worth my time and energy.", yet still believe in the good in people. I think even bad people have something good in them. It's just not healthy to figure it out for me, once the manipulative (or bad) habits have surfaced.
I can't stand this. Most people who suck aren't an onion. They just suck. Or there is a nice layer under that, and then beneath that a core of suck.
I think it's important to inoculate yourself against presentation. Like, sure, now we know that Elizabeth Holmes was evil, an we can be binary about it - but would it have easier to be more critical of her rise if we could look past her apparent positive qualities?
Most people aren't like that, a few are.
It becomes a lot less interesting and curiosity invoking when you have such a bullshitter in your life. The interaction becomes "the lied about this, so what did they really mean". For example, my bullshitter will often have car troubles, a dead pet (that comes back to life) or medical issues whenever they don't want to show up to a family event.
I can promise you there's really nothing more deep to understand beyond the fact that they've become overly comfortable with using lies to get what they want.
Same formula across country, culture, time and people keep getting sucked in.
Holmes is interesting because she's not a freak or a one-off. She's pretty much a generic tech startup CEO billionaire wannabe, finance industry person, and/or familiar political archetype - arguably more extreme than most, but there's nothing truly exotic about the DNA here.
Most people, even toxic people, do have positive qualities.
At the most basic strategic level, it’s vital to recognize this so that we don’t fall for such people in the future. It’s sooooo easy to say “well so and so can’t be too toxic… I mean, they volunteer at the soup kitchen on weekends” or whatever. That’s part of how they (intentionally or unintentionally) lure you in. All very valuable for engineer-types, who may tend to be very literal in actions and their interpretations of others’ actions.
At a more nuanced strategic level, it’s good to recognize that since all people are a mix of positive and negative traits, How can we coexist with such people in cases when we can’t avoid it? It’s simplistic to say “just avoid toxic people” — it’s a good “north star” but is often impossible or impractical. e.g. it’s convenient to say “just cut toxic family members out of your life” and sometimes it’s the right call, but I’ve heard people toss that phrase around like it’s nothing and wow it’s heartbreakingly glib.
I think it’s also valuable for introspective purposes. It’s very easy to fall into the mindset of “well, I’m a good person because of X, Y, and Z” while blinding ourselves to negative ways in which we affect others.
Finally, yeah, sure — I admit it. I like a puzzle. Specifically the puzzle of figuring out if these people believe their own bullshit!
(For the record, I thought this movie was incredible, though HN’s collective “meh” on this thread was expected)
We must be living in very different worlds; in my experience these things are never that black&white.
I do agree that it’s very important to know where your boundaries are in life and stand firm on them; and you don’t need to keep people in your life who are a bad influence. It’s just not as easy to make that distinction as some of the comments itt make it out to be …
> like a puzzle... people believe their own bullshit!
Most people do not have this kind of resources.
I have something like that, but not (just?) for people. When I read (or listen to) something I very often fairly quickly recognize meta signs of bs and go 'kthxbye'. I call it bullshit filter and I am often surprised that some, even fairly intelligent, people can have suprinsingly weak one. As for morbid curiosity towards bs, I have very little. I'm even afraid that being too curious about it might be detrimental so I'm keeping my distance even when I engage somewhat.
I don't think I've ever seen anyone put this into words.
Thank you. A very compelling thought.
If you can get him fired then go for it. Otherwise, you're only harming yourself by letting yourself dwell on it. As for believing him; when my coworker starts rambling about the time the Navy seals came to him for help, I just say "wow man, crazy". I don't believe him, but neither do I confront it. Why bother? I'm not being paid to call out his dumb lies. This is probably what your other coworkers were thinking.
Conversely, actively complaining about it prevents enabling group thing to form. It helps victims identify the situation sooner, to leave of better protect themselves.
If you really wanna out a liar and come out clean on the other end, it's just so much documentation, emotional decision trees, how to phrase & frame & present things, etc. etc. etc.
Often, the compulsive liar will out themselves, create their own demise, or be enabled and further empowered by a toxic system that rewards such types (which if possible, you'd wanna get out of ASAP because prolonged exposure leaves lasting damage to anyone in such systems).
But, you acted as if there was something wrong with those who dont. And as if there was some higher value in enabling and playing along. I disagree with both.
it's hard to see through at first, but toxic relationships often actively obfuscate the toxicity of the social circle the partner is a--often seemingly lesser--part of ... but that's child play and toxicity or even betrayal on these levels is only "hard" if one loses more than a good conscious decade. in professional lives however, that harm is pretty much irreversible, within a single project's time frame, ... what's lost, practically non-retrievable, non-compensable ...
That whole Holmes story felt dodgy from the start. What she was gunning for was partially (recursively) done elsewhere, successfully. Then the whole Corona bit broke out and I still find myself wondering what the fuck ... but that might be a residue non-actual-conspiratorial-they-are-hiding-aliens kind of thought process that still wants to write one or the other post-they-don't-have-the-capacity-to-tap-everyone's-phone-calls and tor-exit-nodes-are-definitely-mostly-owned-by-the-same-privacy-loving-folks-who-maintain-those-8mil-lines-of-linux-and-other-distros story ...
You have to admit that shutting people out is still a defense mechanism that can backfire.
You're not immune from a skilled sociopath for doing this. They know what you're doing. The moment you turn your back is when they know they can blindside you.
It's the moment they start talking behind your back, shutting you out of conversations, undermining your work, etc. You're a lot more vulnerable when you're out of the loop. You can't assume you're stronger or smarter for trying to take the "high road". There is no high road with these people. They'll ruin everything in any way possible. They have their bases covered.
Like, duh yeah that’s the goal. Do that as much as possible, but a lot of your life is going to involve dealing with these people.
On a slightly deeper level, essentially nobody is 0% or 100% bullshitter. Nearly all of humanity falls into the middle. Even the most literal, level 2+ ASD folks I’ve known were, at a minimum, cagey at times.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bad_Blood:_Secrets_and_Lies_in...
https://www.thesocialradars.com/transcripts/TSR-S4-Tyler-Shu...
https://www.thesocialradars.com/transcripts/TSR-S4-Tyler-Shu...
This is similar to the Musk doc. When everything about the person is already explored real-time in the media, there's no mystery left. There's no drama. It is almost as dull as the subject's personality and almost as vacant as the subject's morality. Hmmm, so I guess in a weird self-referential way maybe it is genius? Nah.
In this case, the attempts are simultaneously tortuous, torturous, and tortious!
A. Is she truly the most manipulative person we've ever seen
B. Largely oblivious to what's happening around her
and not:
- Is she guilty
This movie I would say does not answer those questions, nor do I think seeks to.
Probably no. The most manipulative are still not in the jail and are running some well-known big companies.
It's worse than reckless. They make not-knowing part of their operating model.
And they make sure nobody else with power and influence does too much knowing either. Silos, stay in your lane, don't ask questions about how your department's KPIs mesh with the next one over, or what conclusions might be inferred.
At her level of responsibility she'd better know. Whatever the case, she's either deceitful or incompetent. Neither answer is flattering or acceptable.
There's always the chance one could have ridden fake-it-till-you-make-it long enough for the engineers to solve the underlying issues...
https://youtu.be/d9EaqyoA29E
There are some leaders who are extremely good at convincing you about the importance of belief in a particular thing to the point where you avoid even thinking up those questions - if they are ever cornered (and they rarely allow it to get to that point) they will wriggle endlessly rather than responding to a line of inquiry that bursts the collective bubble.
Do they know? It's hard to argue about their internal motivations.
I grew up in one place with a very marked accent, and moved later in life to a place with another distinct, very different accent. My accent shifts within minutes of talking with people from either place. Sometimes I'm in a room with people from both places, and my accent changes depending on who's in my field of view. This doesn't take any effort; in fact, I need to make an effort to avoid it.
This is how accents work. Our brain adapts very quickly to try to fit in.
(I grew up in Buenos Aires and now I live in Madrid)
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code-switching
That said no it is not particularly important. But striking and memorable. The voice is the most striking part but I don't think it would land with me if not for also the turtleneck and the other Jobs knockoff stuff.
The point being people have different ways of speaking to different people.
Maybe another example is Hawaiians talking to each other vs to tourists
For her voice register change, where's the line or the gray area? It's a very personal human thing. I find her to be oriented around how she presents herself and how she is perceived. Then she uses her impressive talents to guide and manipulate.
I find her unnerving but also a great example of how the eyes are really part of the brain.
[edit: a lot, same general idea but composed bester[
let's flip it on its' head; she's now seeking sympathy and understanding from the public and her voice softened: Does that aid perception of truth and honesty? It doesn't for me.
Btw rather hardcore sociopathy is the norm amongt elites who worked their own way to some small pyramid of power and/or wealth, normal balanced happy folks give up that endless chase long before since true achievements in life are hardly up there. But you can't explain this to them, you get blank stare at best or get ridiculed more probably (tried a few times, sobering experiences).
Its rather exceptional when above is not valid, and certainly shouldnt be shocking when revealed. Take top 10 companies, CEOs and whole C suite are all that, they select for their own 'kin'. Take top 100 and still most would fall there firmly, they just know how to do self PR better.
Using deeper voice as a result is like putting on suit and making your hair - adjusting yourself to societal biases.
The issue with Holmes is not voice or cloth or whatever. It is fraud, lies and lack of care about harm she caused.
And using deeper voice is no worsr then putting on cloth to impress. Or using makeup to impress.
If people are irrationally taking deeper voices more serious, using deeper voice is not some kind of evil manipulation. People with higher pitch are not unserious, only treated that way a bit more.
Your deeper voice is not making you more valid or serious in any way. Yes, it is advantage. It is ok to mimic it to get equal advantage.
Care to finish that thought?
To me the subtext of the movie was that a sociopath's manipulation is so strong that even against the heavy counterforce of the filmmaker's bias, it makes it through. I agree with TFA's general premise that the film forces you to confront how easy it is to deceive you -- but it's not the filmmaker who's doing the deceiving. Sociopathic manipulation is about sparking doubt. Gaslighters don't need to prove anything, they just need to plant a "but what if" in some corner of your mind. The fact that the author felt compelled to write TFA at all is ironically a product of that manipulative power.
Another way to think of it is: the documentary makes you think whether, if you were in the room with her in the years that Theranos was operating, would you have fallen for it? If you feel the need to write apologia after watching a documentary that's basically a hit piece, you know the answer.
> My name is Nathan Fielder, and I graduated from one of Canada's top business schools with really good grades.
It's the opening line of the directors previous TV shows
“You sit there believing you’re watching a documentary about a woman who deceived the world, only to discover that you’re also watching a demonstration of how easy it is to deceive you.”
I couldn’t agree more.
The first is the general public's lack of understanding of documentaries as an art form. Documentaries are essentially narratives presented as unfiltered reality ("facts"). Most folks don't truly understand this, or they lose sight of it through suspension of disbelief. That is, they don't know or forget about the film crew, editing, framing, and other artistic choices that form what they see. The illusion becomes invisible; they see only "facts" rather than a constructed narrative designed to guide their interpretation.
Second, filmmakers often use deception as an artistic device in documentaries. Mockumentaries are a pretty clear example of subverting the conventions of documentary filmmaking. It's a bit meta for most folks, so I could see how someone without much media literacy might totally miss this. But it's definitely a very interesting artistic choice given the subject matter.
So pay attention to the sound track and adjust your "suspension of disbelief" accordingly.
If anything that's the part that convinces me it's more than just a documentary, the fact that people apparently don't want to spoil what happens.
Well, yes. We know the plot, but we don't know in what light the movie casts here, and how they do it.
(/s in case it's necessary)
If I buy a security product, and the seller sends me nothing, therefore showing how easy it is to scam me. Are they somehow less of a scammer, did I actually buy anything of value? Are they raising awareness of the problem? Or are they just the problem?
Both just apologists for obvious scumbags
However I strongly disagree with the author of this post. The one thing it does wrong is under-emphasizes how much hard evidence there is the Holmes personally did serious crimes:
1. Concealed use of competitor's machines since she knew there machines weren't capable.
2. Fabricated military contracts and endorsements.
3. Knowingly presented widely inflated revenue projections to investors.
4. Explicitly admitted in court to forging reports using the letterhead and logos of major pharmaceutical companies without their permission
5. There's text messages, internal emails, and firsthand whistleblower testimony—proving that Elizabeth Holmes and her chief operating officer, Sunny Balwani, orchestrated a ruthless campaign to silence anyone who tried to expose the fraud.
If anything the movie tries to let Holmes dupe you into forgetting this. Frankly the fact that SHE invited NATHAN to film this makes me think she was trying to use her baby as a way to garner sympathy and whitewash her life (presumably not really understanding his work).
Without spoiling the movie, it's possible for people to be multiple things at once. That doesn't excuse what Elizabeth Holmes did or explain what others in her circle may be guilty of. The movie is a wild ride.
Thanks!
Surely the documentaries are made in a way that's depicts that very accentued, manipulative, borderline psychopathic person. This is likely more than she was in real life. She might even have been motivated by genuine will to improve the diagnostics field. So yeah you might be "deceived" by these docudramas.
I fear that this kind of poetic write-up muddies the water into "oh, maybe things are more nuanced, and played on her weird personality and background to make things look worse, maybe it wasn't so bad".
People got misdiagnosed and suffered directly because of her. She's every bit guilty of that, as deserving of a harsh judgement as any person directly causing that kind of harm.
Accountability.
Holmes doesn't talk like any innocent person has ever talked. Period. Not even like a naive rube either.
She explicitly initiated this whole thing as a narrative exercise and she just had to stick to the script for what, 45 days? While letting herself feel the genuine self pity all these types of people feel when they are experiencing the consequences for their actions instead of being able to foist them onto someone else?
Her only path forward is to FULLY commit to the bit as a way of deceiving the credulous, even a moment of cynicism and the whole thing falls apart.
Now, did she in fact succeed in that or was it a choice to show no cracks in the facade because it made a more engaging movie?
News flash, I love his media but Nathan Fielder is a monster as well he's my favorite monster but let's not pretend. We can just hold both things to be true instead of engaging in cognitive dissonance.
Other than the children (and that one flatulent horse) everyone involved in this is a monster, and the only way to hide that fact is to ensure the ending is ambiguous, otherwise it just feels like non-transcendent tabloid pap profiting off of bad behavior.
There is goodness, and people attempting to increase goodness and it looks and talks nothing like any of these people.
Yes, this is a documentary about a person. And how the documentary is presented will color your perspective of the person. This should (hopefully) be apparent to anyone who's watched a documentary about a person before.
But how does it do it? What tools does it use to that effect? I appreciate that this film remains relatively neutral/ambiguous, but what makes this unique from other documentaries that deal with ambiguous subject matter?
If you’re that interested in getting these answers, you probably should watch the film
Been like this with most mainstream documentaries like this one.
There's a big difference in ambiguousness and ambivalence, especially in documentaries. "Ambiguousness" represents an uncertain logical conclusion, whereas "ambivalence" stands in for (the strength of) conflicting forces.
I'd wager that an ambiguous documentary would be close to being unwatchable, and I can't remember that I've seen any. Since I've yet to see You Can See Everything, unfortunately I can't comment about it in any way.
Sam Bankman-Fried and Elizabeth Holmes are interesting characters, true, but there's so much nuts in tech, it's just fertile ground for stories.
Has anyone else seen both and can they comment on the differences?
This new one focuses on Elizabeth Holmes's personal life, her mindset right before going to prison, and her ongoing insistence on her own reality. It has direct, intimate access and was filmed inside her home with her partner Billy Evans and their children in the 34 days leading up to her prison sentence.
The fact that it is documentary, and is being marketed along the lines of a block-buster on X with memes should have raised eye-brows. There are lot of genuinely good documentaries out there, they all are left to be discovered, and people discover them. But this one, was/is being marketed as must-watch documentary, and with no reference to the book bad blood?
You’re on ycombinator, a forum for startups. A non zero amount of people here would do exactly what Holmes did for money.
To go even further, "fake it til you make it" used to be a mantra lots of startup founders followed, and the whole story about how reddit got started with puppet-accounts to make it look busy when it was just three guys in a bedroom, was hailed as a successful strategy for growing startups.
Maybe this question is related to polls showing a significant percentage of Americans considering the likes of Colbert, Stewart, and John Oliver trustworthy news reporters btw.
Is this a parody lol?
Maybe when I read about "cinemas are a bad experience nowadays" on american sites (reddit, HN) they mean this but I always felt that they are deceiving me.
Maybe I'm just too Asian-European because I never experienced that in any European or Far East Asian cinemas.
That makes sense. Berkeley is part of the same social caste Holmes exploited for investment.
No, that's called "obnoxious virtue signalling" and people do it all the time in places like San Francisco, Seattle and Portland. It's gross and unnecessary. Don't glorify it.
You know how cinema is a good opportunity to sit there among several dozen strangers (at least), and enjoy a shared experience, and laugh, cry, scream, whatever you do, together?
Well, I've been to several films where nobody laughed. Like, there were at least a dozen or more other people in the audience, and there were genuinely funny parts of these films, and there was nobody else laughing in there, except me.
And I can tell you which ones: Disclosure Day, The End of Oak Street, and Digger. Now, the first two aren't comedies. But they definitely had comedic, sort of awkward bits that were obviously supposed to be LOL funny, to break the tension and establish some moods. And Digger itself, classified as a black comedy, was thoroughly hilarious, and farcical, although exceedingly awkward in some parts. And I was walking out behind two nerds and they were having an intellectual discussion of how "interesting" it was to them.
But nobody's laughing in the theater. And I am not exactly sure why. It is not long ago when I noticed that younger people were reacting and laughing much faster than I could react, for some reason. But now, the audience has simply stopped laughing altogether.
Is this unique to my experience? Anyone else in the USA noticing this? I know that not a lot of people are attending movies these days. But The Odyssey was selling out, over a month into its run. But there were no funny parts to it, I suppose.
"We like to believe that we form our opinions by gathering evidence, weighing facts, and arriving at reasonable conclusions. Be for real. No we do not."
She speaks for herself. The author then doesn't bring up a single fact, piece of evidence, or anything else besides just restating the pedestrian premise a few times. I don't share her inability to study a topic in-depth, come to a conclusion or challenge my previously held beliefs, and then pass judgment while attaching a calibrated degree of certainty to the soundness of my conviction.
> We like to believe that we form our opinions by gathering evidence, weighing facts, and arriving at reasonable conclusions. Be for real. No we do not. Here’s how it actually goes: We form an emotional impression first, then we build a belief around it, and then we go looking for facts that support it. This is my theory as to why we’re so divided in this country. Beliefs built on emotion are nearly impossible to reason with.
This idea is explored in depth in The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion by Jonathan Haidt.
And related David Hume quote:
> Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions
She is MAGA. That's enought to know about the topic.
The media and seemingly random persons like this stanning her is extremely weird.
Edit: looked it up. Who is stanning her? The person who wrote the article or Nathan?
The article was written by someone who's never seen any of Nathan's other work and is apparently blown away by his skill at and unquenchable fetish for using and deceiving people. Yeah, that's his whole thing. Congrats, you just watched a documentary about psychopaths.
I'm unsure why you'd think this was a deception, given the probability.
Please do tell more. Do you mean pharma or diagnostics?
https://archive.ph/sDeDD
Rolls eyes
I guess I travel in very different circles than this author.
>But the thing that often gets lost in the retelling of her story is that Holmes was actually acquitted of all four charges related to defrauding patients. She’s in prison because a jury found that she knowingly misled investors who poured more than $700 million into the startup. That’s a significant distinction
Now my eyes are getting sore from all the rolling. I don't think that fact gets "lost," and it's not a significant distinction.
I think I'm done with this article, whatever it's point is.
> each photographer was given a different description of [the same person]: a millionaire, a convict, a fisherman, an alcoholic, a psychic, and a lifesaver.
Well I looked at the pics and thought "yeah, wow, the millionaire, the convict (so obvious!), the fisherman, the alcoholic" it's really impressive! And only immediately after I saw that each picture had the caption with the supposed character and they were all scrambled- what I thought was obviously a sagacious millionaire was in fact the convict, the slightly deranged looking guy was the fisherman, the millionaire was in fact the alcoholic... Lol.
trying to minimize fraud? what a weird article.
Separately, Theranos' COO and Holmes' boyfriend at the time was convicted by a separate jury for defrauding patients. Theranos also settled multiple lawsuits for ~$50M and declared bankruptcy soon after.
If a person is found not guilty, they are not guilty. To argue otherwise is to undermine the core institution of western civilization.
Seriously, this is why OJ was found liable for the murder of his wife in a civil case, as they're judged on the balance of probabilities.
And it's why people who have served time, then had a retrial ordered and then found not guilty, can be denied compensation, because decisions on compensation are also done on the balance of probabilities.
So yeah, "not guilty" != "innocent".
Court of law with its ability imprison people must have higher standard for the "guilty" decision. That makes it possible for rich guilty people to not be judged guilty.
You are allowed and expexted to use own brain. You can consider people guilty.
They didn't do their diligence and do kinda deserve to lose their money.
> Holmes ... did more than defraud investors.
Which was not proven in a court of law as judged by a jury of her peers.
Reading John Carreyrou's book, it's pretty clear she was guilty of (lots of bad) things beyond the lone 'defrauding investor' charge that was successfully carried.
Richard Feynman called it "normalization of deviance", but there's other names for it as well depending on the details.
I'm sure everyone has heard some variation of this before, especially in the work place.
I once got angrily shouted at by a customer because I turned up as a consultant and apparently I told them exactly what the last five consultants had said!
Well, yes, of course. It's the solution to their problem.
I regularly face variants of this at work.
"Yeah, yeah, backups are important, stop talking about it already."
"Yes, but they're still not happening and they still remain the top priority and it is madness to start a project to reformat the SAN array until backups are working!"
"That's what you said last week! You always say that!"
Etc...
There's a point where people lean into it and become purposefully contrary, making their refusal to change their opinion a permanent part of their identity as a person.
Your comment doesn't seem to exhibit any understanding of the opposing arguments.
Just offering my take of your comment as an impartial observer.
I assume what you meant is that having heard about the person the movie focuses on, you have no interest in seeing more about her. Having felt entirely apathetic about Holmes since the early days of the Theranos scam, I can’t say I disagree with you.
I know people who I thought were independent thinkers basically repeat media narratives whilst claiming that "I looked at all the facts and came up with my own opinion." But it was very clear that they had not looked at all the facts and only consumed news from specific mainstream media sources.
One case I remember very clearly concerns Trump Derangement Syndome; what was surprising was that when I asked this person I know "Why do you say Trump is misogynistic?" they pointed out the incident from 2016 elections when Trump made that dirty comment about "Grab them by the ..." But the irony is that the person I was taking to had said worse, mysogynistic jokes in the past! And they definitely don't consider themselves a mysogynist... And I don't either. Sometimes people say things for shock value but they don't believe them. It matters a lot if something is a one-off or if it's a pattern. You can't say someone's is anything based on something they said a couple of times; someone who is truly a mysogynist or a racist or an elitist or whatever would keep coming back to the same ideas over and over. If someone says something or does something offputting once a year, it's kind of insane to assign a label to the person based on it... As if that one thing they almost never say is part of their identity.
The media and films are are really good at selectively showing us a few pieces out of context and convincing us that it's a pattern of behavior and fully characterizes the person. Just pick the 10 worst things a person said in the course of a year on their worst days and you can make them look like the devil.