I live in California. Out of all individuals who hoped to strike it rich gold mining any idea how many did… a few. The people who really got rich sold gold pans, shovel and alcohol. When silicon rush hit California hit California 100 years later out of the thousands of companies who tried to make any idea how many succeeded? A few. Point is it’s not easy to be a Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Larry Ellison, etc. EH like Trevor Milton were telling a good story to get investors, but that story involved breaking the laws of physics. What they were peddling was a type of “perpetual motion” machine.
I think in both the case of Theranos and Nikola none of what was being promised “involved breaking the laws of physics” They are both achievable and sensible ideas: highly integrated automated blood testing and hydrogen cell powered road freight. Both ideas have or are being implemented to some level of success by other startups. The fact that the underlying basis is good is what gives these “scams” the ability to become so big. The problem is the people in charge lacked the competence to lead the ventures to success and also were more interested in making off with the money (and attention) through fraud rather than doing the work. By fabricating their achievements and capabilities and misleading investors (committing fraud) they caused a diversion of resources from other companies that may have been able to use those resources to achieve actual good in the world.
Quote from: sandalcandal on May 25, 2021, 05:59:40 am
This is an attempt to justify the means and the motivation for what is ultimately still destructive fraud. Still somewhat useful in terms of understanding how and why someone could be driven to do what she did.
I didn’t watch the video but pressure due to being on the brink of failure can make people do weird & irrational things. I’ve seen that happen a couple of times from a very short distance.
The video suggests what she was trying to do had a good basis but she was pushed to be extremely ambitious and over promise due to various “supporters” and investors. The video does a good job of highlighting the circumstances Elizabeth Holmes found herself in and the pressure she was placed under. Ultimately there is still initiative on the part of Elizabeth Holmes to place fabricated “success” ahead of actually achieving the company mission and product delivery through outright fraud, misrepresenting key data and company achievements over an extended period (not just spur of the moment). I think there is issue more with what she claimed Theranos
HAD
achieved rather than what she claimed Theranos (or a similar more competently lead company)
COULD
achieve. This decision to resort to dishonesty seems to be what most people identify as a “sociopathic personality” but I doubt most people making this judgement are qualified psychologists.
This demonisation (IMO justified) is furthered by her ultimate failure to deliver despite the immense resources she was provided. If she had ultimately delivered something commercially useful (even if it was a under what was promised) then she might be closer to being in a moral grey area. Had she actually the competency in leadership and executive decision making to make the venture succeed then she might be placed in a different class of people by the general consensus.
Not outright disagreeing with nctnico but giving some summary of my interpretation. Having a reason is not having an excuse.
I think in both the case of Theranos and Nikola none of what was being promised “involved breaking the laws of physics” They are both achievable and sensible ideas: highly integrated automated blood testing and hydrogen cell powered road freight. Both ideas have or are being implemented to some level of success by other startups. The fact thatis what gives these “scams” the ability to become so big.lacked the competence to lead the ventures to success and also were more interested in making off with the money (and attention) through fraud rather than doing the work. By fabricating their achievements and capabilities and misleading investors (committing fraud) they caused a diversion of resources from other companies that may have been able to use those resources to achieve actual good in the world.The video suggests what she was trying to do had a good basis but she was pushed to be extremely ambitious and over promise due to various “supporters” and investors. The video does a good job of highlighting the circumstances Elizabeth Holmes found herself in and the pressure she was placed under. Ultimately there is still initiative on the part of Elizabeth Holmes to place fabricated “success” ahead of actually achieving the company mission and product delivery through outright fraud, misrepresenting key data and company achievements over an extended period (not just spur of the moment). I think there is issue more with what she claimed Theranosachieved rather than what she claimed Theranos (or a similar more competently lead company)achieve. This decision to resort to dishonesty seems to be what most people identify as a “sociopathic personality” but I doubt most people making this judgement are qualified psychologists.This demonisation (IMO justified) is furthered by her ultimate failure to deliver despite the immense resources she was provided. If she had ultimately delivered something commercially useful (even if it was a under what was promised) then she might be closer to being in a moral grey area. Had she actually the competency in leadership and executive decision making to make the venture succeed then she might be placed in a different class of people by the general consensus.Not outright disagreeing with nctnico but giving some summary of my interpretation. Having a reason is not having an excuse.