> IMHO, this business model is fine when the only things at risk are venture capital [...]

Isn't there always more risk than just "venture capital" to this "move fast and break things" model?

Take Uber for an example, sure, they've burned so much cash trying to circumvent laws, but not only have they burned cash, they have also changed economies around the world by burning this cash and trying to disrupt things. Many normal taxi drivers are now without jobs, and suddenly the risk seems bigger than just venture capital.

Same with AirBnb and changing the hospitality sector, and many other examples where it seems there is just cash being burned, but that burn also have an outside effect bigger than just the burn.

Yes, organised crime (because that is what you are describing) has big knock-on effects on the rest of society. That is why we treat organised crime the way we normally do. The fact that these corporations were allowed abroad and left to do what they did highlights that the legal system (meant in the first place to protect citizens) has been broken. That that doesn't get looked at harder and seen for what it is is truly tragic.

> Many normal taxi drivers are now without jobs, and suddenly the risk seems bigger than just venture capital.

I've lost count of how many times I call an Uber and I end up getting a taxi. I guess IMMV but from my vantage point I'm not sure how realistic is the "taxi drivers are getting fired" take.

One aspect where Uber thankfully did disrupted the taxi industry is that now customers can flag bad taxi drivers for providing a bad customer experience, and in the process push out all the bad apples.

There are two possible "fake it until you make it" levels going on here. Say you draw a regular sample of blood and run tests with competitor's products until yours work. Tests are real, but everyone thinks your tests are doing the work. That's one way. The other way is you take a drop of blood and produce unreliable results.

Generally "fake it until you make it" has some delivery of the actual product, even if it costs more to produce than it generates in revenue. Or it requires human execution of something which appears to be automated.

The Theranos case is interesting because it straight up didn't work. It definitely crossed over from "getting something done differently than it appears" into "straight up fabrication, intimidation, lies, and buying off the politically influential."

Look at the board for the simple reason it gets a lot of attention (beside hitting all the tropes). Short on medical, long on political influence.

All of those things, but also I think a factor we all underestimate is Elizabeth herself has this super creepy presence in nearly every photo and video where she makes an appearance -- something just seems "off", in an almost uncanny valley sort of way, and confirmation that something is in fact "off" in the form of an actual scandal, I think, might satisfy some deep emotion that drove views to the original news stories that showed her picture. Those pictures stick with you, even sans-scandal.

Can't wait to see who they cast in the inevitable Netflix series.

>I think a factor we all underestimate is Elizabeth herself has this super creepy presence in nearly every photo and video where she makes an appearance -- something just seems "off", in an almost uncanny valley sort of way, and confirmation that something is in fact "off" in the form of an actual scandal

Got to learn how to recognize the antisocial ones. This is how you figure that out.

You can fake a lot, but the involuntary eye muscles don't move properly, so you can see it in the eyes.

Some use that to avoid certain people. Some use it to find the people they are looking for. The words that are said don't matter as much. You can just look them in the eyes.

> I'm curious, does this case get so much publicity because it touches upon all the tropes of Silicon Valley?

I think people are so used to being lied to by companies that they’re really happy to see it come back on someone. When’s the last time you saw a press release that wasn’t spun to contort the truth as far as possible? We’re so used to corporate communication being 99% polished turds and, while we accept it, we hate it. Just like all the experts calling out their stuff as impossible, we all know we’re being lied to.

Finally, someone was caught being full of shit in a way that makes them liable.

> IMHO, this business model is fine when the only things at risk are venture capital and you're trying to sell more widgets

I think this business model is normal when it’s other things at risk, but people are enthusiastic to see comeuppance because they’re so sick of this being business as usual.

> IMHO, this business model is fine when the only things at risk are venture capital and you're trying to sell more widgets, but when it comes to life and safety - bad news.

She's not on trial for defrauding patients and putting their life and safety at risk. She's on trial for defrauding investors and putting their money at risk.

she s also on trial for defrauding doctors and patients

It gets a lot of attention because VCs were publicly conned.