Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

If it works equally well for Uber or Lyft or WeWork, then trying to shoehorn Theranos in since it's a spectacular fraud that doesn't really fit the definition was a bad decision.

That's rarely a sign of a piece that makes a strong argument.




The article covered WeWork much, much more extensively than Theranos.

I know its against the guidelines, but did you read the article?


Trying to shoehorn in Theranos does not preclude covering WeWork, so I'm not sure how you read my comment to imply that it did.


Theranos is mentioned three times in the article, and always in the company of more cogent examples of VC-funded companies- Juicero, Uber, and WeWork. The quibbling over Theranos really does look like a distraction away from the main points of the article.




Join us for AI Startup School this June 16-17 in San Francisco!

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: