I can't imagine the stress that Holmes goes through on a constant basis. There is the usual startup founder stress, but this feels like another level.
Of course there is a subjective line here, but the things that have happened so far seem to be organic, natural, and maybe even predictable responses to the actions that that preceded. That's not revenge, that's just desserts.
For a venture like this the investors would have been contributing only research and development funds, correct? Just because it has failed, doesn't mean that there wasn't anything worth pursuing to begin with.
Judging by https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11687660 the answer is 'yes'.
I wonder who's writing the movie script?
I don't care about this person. I care about all the people hurt due to this person's actions. And I am greatly saddened by the high likelihood that this person will, despite the absolute carnage, profit tremendously from the situation.
she definitely deserves every bit of it.
I worry much more about the stress from regular, honest people that are now associated with Theranos. It would suck to spend many years there, assuming that other parts of the company were doing their job correctly, only to be abandoned so completely by upper management's handling of this situation.
What jobs would she get?
She probably doesn't need a job, given her family's wealth, but her father is well-connected government official. I'm sure he could get her a position at some agency or other, if she really wanted one.
> Elizabeth’s father, Christian IV, grew up in California, raised by his mother, a former Powers model, whose second husband was a prominent San Francisco businessman. The family moved in powerful circles. Mr. Holmes took a Hearst daughter to a debutante cotillion in 1967.
> Mr. Holmes had a distinguished career in public service, holding a number of senior government positions in Washington.[0]
0: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/20/business/theranos-founder-...
No, I don't know her net worth for certain, but it isn't a stretch to say that she comes from wealth. It's a lot easier to get wealthy people to give you a ton of money if you're also wealthy.
Their product was absurdly broken, and the results were essentially a coin flip (I believe the FDA said results were accurate around 50% of the time). They wanted real doctors and patients to base important medical decisions off of this...
[1] https://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/WE-AA766B_HAPPY_1... - from page 12 of [2]
[2] http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/papers/2013/...
3 is interesting, and backed up by what's happening in this thread. My question is really: is that the world we want to live in? Throughout human history we have gradually been curtailing our violence as a species, and I hope everyone here thinks that's been a good thing, and hopes it will continue. Wishing suffering on anyone for any reason is a form of violence.
Mind you, I don't actually want pity. What I really want is respect for my competence and assistance in becoming successful in my own right. But I run into a lot of people who spend a lot of time on their high horse about wanting the world to be a better place. In most cases, these are the people who have treated me the worst -- who neither will give me genuine respect as a competent human being and a hand up nor so called compassion and a hand out.
I think if you really think that bad thoughts are a form of violence and you want this to be a nicer world, then arguing with people here and criticising them is a kind of violence as well, plus a form of hypocrisy. What are you doing to actually make the world a better place?
Now consider that Buddhist monks are forbidden from handling money, preparing their own food, and are willingly entirely dependent on the charity of others. It is a kind of self-imposed poverty that demonstrates how much a person can achieve without much more than the shirt on his back.
I'm sure this could be explained in an even more conduct way, but I'm having a hard time putting down in words how I see the relationship works in my mind.
It's perfectly reasonable for people to feel anger/resentment/distrust towards somebody that has done them wrong, just as much as it is perfectly reasonable for a person to feel horrible once they start being the center of attention for having done something wrong. The key difference between these two emotional states, is that one side knew what was happening (i.e. the one committing the act of deception), and the other one didn't. That gives the person committing the deception the upper hand in predicting the outcome of the whole situation, because they must know to some extent that getting caught is one of the possible outcomes of their actions; willfully ignoring this reality isn't equivalent to never even knowing it could exist (as would be the case for victims).
Now typically, anger isn't very productive, but neither exactly is total compassion. Pure indifference is the closest thing to a neutral state in such a situation, and from such a vantage point, people getting angry at being deceived and people getting depressed at being caught is completely logical, and admissible as long as there isn't any real destruction or bodily harm going on. I mean, we could feel sad for a shady person feeling sad in addition to all that, but what will that accomplish?
If you want to apply Buddhist ethics to influential people misusing their power, uh, I guess I follow what you're trying to do, but it seems cray-cray to me.