Hacker News Reader

Comment by aaron695 | Hacker News Reader

Both Theranos and uBeams CEO's are women.

Totally crazy technology outside the laws of science but no one will call them on it.

This stuff has been non debatable in the science/logic community for..... years?

How the hell else are they still going?

Are there companies run with male CEOs that have done the same? Not crazy ideas, but crazy ideas that are not scientifically plausible that also get PR and VC funding.

Are they just getting more PR cause they are run by women and seem to be more pumped than they are?

Are they being picked on because the CEO's are women and plenty of other crazy companies who get similar funding just disappear?

I don't get it, but how many stories do we need about these two companies that say they are just not possible.... It's getting boring.

View on HN

> Are there companies run with male CEOs that have done the same? Not crazy ideas, but crazy ideas that are not scientifically plausible that also get PR and VC funding.

Muller sky car?

Kastje van van der Sloot?

Goauld?

And numerous others. Yes, Male CEOs have done the same thing. In fact, they have done it many more times than female CEOs because the division is still skewed towards many more male CEOs than female CEOs.

Are those representative? THe Moller Sky car wikipedia page says:

"Although the physics behind the Skycar design is rarely criticized"

So was it not scientifically plausible? (as opposed to economically inviable/underfunded)

Even if you can get one flying car to work that does not mean that flying cars as a concept will ever work.

Just like uBeam, you might be able to make it work under controlled conditions but in the wild it would not work.

I'm not sure that it did ever work, but I'm also not sure that it was scientifically implausible either.

There are many examples of companies with similar practices run by male CEO. Solar Freaking Roadways, thorium cars, levitating houses, ...

And what does this have to do with anything? Let's not get distracted here and get back to discussing facts about the technology (which can't possibly work like they are claiming).

This article is making a clear dog whistle.

And I'm calling it on it, if you can't see that I'm sorry but you really need to look harder at the media.

So I'm being on topic for what the article is actually saying.

I find it more interesting that they're both archetypes of an "attractive" woman (blonde, light-skinned) in American culture.

In studies where workers/students are asked to rate their peers on traits unrelated to attractiveness (including intelligence), there's a consistent bias toward attractive peers. [1]

uBeam's technology sets off the BS alarm of most university students with intro physics knowledge, so I find it mind-boggling that an entire room of VCs threw millions of dollars at this.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_attractiveness_stereo...

> both archetypes of an "attractive" woman (blonde, light-skinned)

Says who? light-skinned women appear in american fashion magazines a lot because most of the population are white. Tanned, or light brown skin is still considered attractive though. Blonde women are stereotyped as ditzy/bubbly/fun, not necessarily "attractive".

Have you ever seen a cheerleading squad?

From which country?

Light skin + blonde isn't considered attractive in America. A nice tan is almost universally more desirable. It's why Nicole Kidman has always been a Hollywood outlier in terms of her skin tone. It's why celebrities typically sport tans. It's why pasty / paleness due to lack of sun exposure is viewed as a negative when it comes to attractiveness (in American culture it suggests loner / lack of social activity / lack of physical shape / poor health).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com