> I do get frustrated seeing these sorts of vague cynical quips levying *specific* accusations based more upon a gut plausibility of a scenario rather than a clear outline of information.
I edited in a response to that, to the effect that this kind of vague accusation is not that vague, people are predictable, and we should know who we get our information from.
BTW I totally understand that HN is not Debate Club, and that comments aren't required to be formal, rigorous, evidence-based arguments. Occasionally I just feel compelled to point out times when beliefs about people in general are used to justify accusations against specific people in specific circumstances -- even when I can empathize with the original sentiment, as was the case with the OP.
I did clarify, but I'm curious what specific accusation you read from my comment.
I re-read it a few times and I don't see one regarding Theranos other than sloppy writing. My "gut plausibility of a scenario" that the author is pumping up her husband's portfolio company in an NYT article is pretty easy to validate by reading the article itself, it just happens to not be Theranos.
Are you seeing something that's not there, or am I failing to see something that is?
BTW I agree with your overall sentiment. Sorry if I was too obnoxious with my post. Sometimes I overthink things (such as with the rest of this comment).
On your comment:
> > She only pauses in her work to run — seven miles a day.
> -- Laura Arrillaga-Andreessen, yes that Andreessen, writing in the New York Times Magazine about Visionary Tech Entrepreneurs with, um, no conflict of interest whatsoever I'm sure.
> Turns out Palantir's Alex Karp was also "harnessing goodness through technology." No idea how she missed Adam Neumann.
My issue is only with the first two lines, therein I can only discern one meaningful interpretation given the context.
1. You begin with a puffy quote from the article about Elizabeth Holmes
2. You name the author and publisher
3. You commented that she was writing "with, um, no conflict of interest whatsoever I'm sure" -- which is most likely sarcasm and that you suggest the opposite is true.
Therein is a claim (or at least a stated belief): that the author had a conflict of interest when writing about Elizabeth Holmes.
The nature of the conflict wasn’t clear. I looked it up (and later posted an article which asserted such a conflict) but didn’t find any clear connections between the Andreessens and Holmes/Theranos specifically.
In your #3 you seem to have overlooked the phrase “about Visionary Tech Entrepreneurs,” which is what the eye-roll about conflict of interest pertains to.
I get what you misunderstood and I think I now get why, but I disagree that it’s what the “verbal eye roll” (love that phrase from another commenter) is actually doing on the, er, page. Guess we can summon the English teachers now, but I’m sticking to my style. Thanks for taking the time to explain.
> I do get frustrated seeing these sorts of vague cynical quips levying *specific* accusations based more upon a gut plausibility of a scenario rather than a clear outline of information.
reply