Elizabeth Holmes's partner raises millions for blood-testing startup(theguardian.com) |
Elizabeth Holmes's partner raises millions for blood-testing startup(theguardian.com) |
What a weird world we are living in.
https://www.biography.com/crime/a63917214/billy-mcfarland-no...
Not my intention at all....
https://apnews.com/article/technology-business-health-elizab...
Wouldn't a foundational invention like this 20-30 years ago come out of a university lab? It feels like VC funding is not the right vehicle for the kind of development that takes a lot of time and must work the first time. Those VCs are going to be looking for returns.
I agree that the modern Silicon Valley model of VC funding has been spoiled by SaaS startups, where the capital expense is smaller, the timeline to exit is shorter, and pivots are easier. It is not great for deeptech innovation because those require more capital, time, and are more technology-constrained than software. Ironically, modern VC was developed to support semiconductor startups (1970s-90s), but has drifted from that technology-heavy origin.
This is not a coincidence at all.
[https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=yw_xyGbUNZ0&pp=ygUWZWxpemFiZXR...]
Big "if", I know...
https://archive.is/20250511164818/https://www.nytimes.com/20...
Here is the patent
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2025/05/10/business/Haem...
Both are mentioned but not linked in the article above.
Are there some knowledgeable people who would like to comment on the patent?
- Karl Marx (https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1852/18th-brumai...)
I understand that justice is for sale in Washington these days.
I think it's an uncomfortable truth that there was some good in Theranos in terms of the unfulfilled needs of society and the potential of diligent work toward realizing those needs with technology.
I don't know how often it's been said by others, but I often think that Theranos would have had an easier time if they hadn't falsified anything. Faking things takes effort too, and aiming a little lower and being less secretive would have been a better outcome. Maybe a different tack is possible through this reboot.
Mr. Evans' silver spoon is worth $10M, so raising $20M against that in such a fraught area is eye-opening. Whether he sees this as part of Elizabeth's redemption arc or just can't quit the hair of the dog that bit him, I guess we'll see.
Elizabeth Holmes' crime wasn't defrauding people, it was defrauding people richer than her. Change my mind.
Most VC's are taking it in the shorts right now anyway, because they're addicted to free money and there's no more free money, and most of them quite frankly suck at spotting good deals. So for the intrepid souls who cast their lot in with Mr. Evans, maybe only Nixon could go to China, and maybe they'll fare better than the stodgy fat-dumb-and-happy B-tier VC's who are not long for this brave new world anyway.
Good intentions to save the world, without any working (or even possible!) technology, are not investment-worthy.
But there's a wide gulf between a drop and a 20mL vial. Requiring three drops and claiming half the battery of tests would still be a substantial improvement. That's what they should've done. And I think this new startup can do that.
I interviewed with Theranos toward the very end. I have never been in a place with a bigger show of security, and I've previously worked for years in nuclear weapons laboratories. If this new startup ditches the demonic-possession voice and the arch-military security schtick, and the Wizard of Oz curtain, I might not consider an investment in them as foolhardy as one in Theranos.
Parallels with cryptocurrency where the scam scamcoin token authors just spin up a new one after running off with the funds from their prior one.
2: why is lover so bad?
I see the hate in this discussion for the phrase, but I don't get it.
Is it some modern thing where we're supposed to separate the concept of marriage from sex due to asexual types or some such?
legitimate question : I don't get it. I'm more than willing to avoid the use of lover, but someone at least explain it to me.
would more casual concepts like 'defacto' or 'commonlaw' be better? 'life-partner'? 'co-life strategist' ?
Partner = main romantic connection.
I don't think it's rational either, but it is pervasive. If I described the lunch I had with my lover in a work setting, I'd expect to get tutted or an email from HR. It would probably be nonspecific and merely say that I am making others uncomfortable without mentioning the actual problem -- because to put it into words exposes the ridiculousness.
$0.02 :)
The reporting of that guy and his relationship with her definitely caused me to have some negative thoughts and opinions, as in, what's wrong with this guy that he'd be involved with her? Isn't it irresponsible to have kids knowing she was headed for prison? But putting that aside, they have two kids together, which gives him a higher status than "lover".
The wikipedia on them says their status is also oddly ambiguous:
> In mid-2019, Holmes and Evans reportedly married in a private ceremony.[137][138] Holmes and Evans have not directly confirmed whether the two are legally married, and several sources continue to refer to him as her "partner" rather than her husband
Oxford actually has (as one of three definitions):
either member of a married couple or of an established unmarried couple. "she lived with her partner"
a person with whom one has sex; a lover. "make sure that you or your partner are using an effective method of contraception"
I've noticed a trend, especially in Commonwealth or European countries to use "partner" to mean "sexual partner" or "romantic partner". However, it's also used in business, sports and many other contexts. Just saying "partner" on its own is less clear than "lover".
https://people.com/elizabeth-holmes-relationship-billy-evans...
It's a great example of why not to change titles, though, because "lover" carries wildly different implications than "partner" and makes the title seem much more salacious.
[Edit: a lot of thoughtful responses but downvoting?]
Second time entrepreneurs are more likely to raise capital even if their first venture failed and spectacularly so.
Adam Neumann got funded by a16z(their largest?) despite all the governance issues at Wework , there are many other examples of high profile and regular entrepreneurs getting funding .
This is literally a rule that is entirely dependent on the rule itself not being popular.
Maybe Taleb's works should be added to that blog post - leading on HN today - about the questionable value of lay business books.
I looked over her bio on Wikipedia. Yeah, she certainly came from a rich + connected background. So she understood rich people and what they wanted to hear. However, I don't think her Stanford professors were implicated, at least as far as I've read. They didn't knock any sense into her but they also didn't co-sign.
But none of the adults raised alarm. I got into it once with a VC trying to say that Sand Hill was blameless. That was nonsense too.
Warren Buffet and Charley Munger were partners. So were Jobs and Woz. Or Buffet and Gates while playing Bridge many times. There's absolutely nothing romantic or sexual about the word "partner" itself, though of course partnerships exist in those realms as well as in business, sports, music, dance and countless other pursuits.
> didn't break any laws,
To VCs, I would imagine the first is bigger disqualification than the second.
Startups are modeled around breaking laws to disrupt all the time. Ask for forgiveness than permission mentality.
Uber and Airbnb did it with taxi, breaking privacy laws in Europe by ad supported tech or fintech with AML/KYC securities law or more recently on copyright law to build their training data by ai companies . All of these depend on law being broken to succeed.
Calculating the risk of prosecution and the size of the penalty with upside of doing it anyway happens in these companies all the time.
I see the same thing happening in Spanish - no one can say “novio/a” anymore. Why?
In light of all these facts, I, for one, would say that "partner" is an impoverished term to use in this headline, because what really does that signify? A business partner? Come on. There are obstacles here to clarity of terminology, due to the dubious nature of her legal marriage and such. But this is a woman who seems to have leveraged her sexuality to every advantage, as well as being taken advantage of in return. Not a good scene!