Podcasts about Theranos

Low Value Mail is a live call-in show discussing current events, politics, conspiracies and much more.Every Monday night at 7pm ETSupport The Show:

Introducing Audible True Crime, a dedicated podcast feed where we bring you the best podcasts in true crime, with episodes dropping every single week. Find your next bingeable series about unsolved murders, cold cases, scams and mysteries. This is the cream of the crop of Audible podcasts, featuring award-winning series and soon-to-be favorites. Stop pestering your friends or searching “best true crime podcast” on Google. Up first, Guru: The Dark Side of Enlightenment: A search for spiritual guidance leads a group of strangers to seek direction from a self-help guru. And not just any guru. James Arthur Ray is an Oprah endorsed motivational speaker and entrepreneur whose unorthodox methods that blend self-improvement and economic advice have won him praise and a growing following. He's fast becoming a self-help superstar. But Ray's increasingly extreme methods push his followers to their limits. What are they seeking? What does he offer? And what happens when it all goes too far, and people die? Listen to Audible True Crime wherever you get your podcasts. Audible subscribers can binge all episodes on Audible True Crime early and ad-free right now. Join Audible in the Audible App or by subscribing on Apple Podcasts. Listen now: link.pscrb.fm/6438e/fdaudibletruecrimeron-93b44 See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

¿Hasta dónde se puede llegar la obsesión por la búsqueda del éxito? Hoy en este nuevo Docuchicxs les presentamos el impactante caso de Elizabeth Holmes, la reina moderna del fraude, quien a través de su proyecto Theranos, pudo engañar a las personas más poderosas del mundo, incluido Carlos Slim, para participar en la construcción de la estafa más grande de las últimas décadas, después de ser considerada la nueva Steve Jobs. Cuéntenos qué opinan con más de tres palabras en los comentarios: ¿Elizabeth siempre supo que estaba defraudando a un montón de personas, o alguna vez tuvo la intención de ayudar a la gente? ¿O será que estaba tan enamorada de sí misma que realmente creyó que su invento era genuinamente bueno para el mundo y que nadie podía atreverse a cuestionar “a la nueva Steve Jobs”? Acomódense en el sillón ✨, prepárense unas palomitas

“By operating in secrecy, they're able to avoid or evade accountability — and, in many instances, engage in anticompetitive behavior or even fraud.” — Renée M. Jones on unicorns Twelve years ago there were 39 unicorns — private companies worth a billion dollars or more. Today there are over 1,400, collectively valued above $7 trillion, with the twin beasts of Anthropic and OpenAI at the front of the herd, driving the entire American economy. A good thing, surely? Not according to Renée M. Jones, the SEC's chief regulator of corporate finance from 2021 to 2023 and author of Untamed Unicorns: Why Startup Finance Is Broken and How to Fix It. The former SEC big game warden worries that this stampede of wild unicorns might be driving the entire American economy off a cliff. Her problem isn't that these private companies exist. It's that we know almost nothing about them. That's because of changes in the law since the Nineties that have lifted the hundred-investor cap on private funds, thereby enabling them to mushroom from under $1 trillion to $17 trillion. Add secondary markets where insiders quietly cash out, and the IPO becomes optional. And so we know almost nothing about companies like Anthropic and OpenAI with private valuations in the hundreds of billions of dollars. The result is what Jones calls the founder-friendly model of Facebook, Uber or Airbnb. With super-voting shares at ten votes apiece, founders effectively choose their own bosses, thereby stripping investors of the power to discipline anyone. Think Travis Kalanick and Mark Zuckerberg. Think Theranos, WeWork and FTX. Unicorns are named, of course, for their impossibility. Not so long ago, nobody could imagine a private company worth more than a billion dollars. However, with $7 trillion now on the table, Jones is concerned about the health of the American startup economy. On the brink of the OpenAI and Anthropic IPOs, I fear Renée Jones might be right about the dangers of a real crash triggered by the stampede of these mythical creatures. Jurassic Park is now playing in Silicon Valley. Pass the popcorn. Five Takeaways •       The $7 Trillion Secret. The unicorn was named for its rarity: 39 existed twelve years ago. Today there are more than 1,400, worth over $7 trillion — roughly 1,100 in America, nearly 300 in China — and the biggest of them shape the economy while disclosing essentially nothing. That is Jones' target: not the billion-dollar valuations but the secrecy. A billion-dollar private company faces neither the disclosure rules nor the governance requirements of a public company its size, which means accountability arrives only by accident — a scandal, a frustrated investor, a whistleblower calling a reporter. Everything else stays dark.•       How the IPO Died. Startups once went public within five to seven years, for two reasons: growth capital lived in public markets, and the 500-shareholder rule forced large private companies to register — it's reportedly why Google and Facebook held their IPOs at all. Both reasons were legislated away. NSMIA (1996) uncapped private funds, whose assets exploded from under $1 trillion to $17 trillion; the JOBS Act (2012) moved the trigger to 2,000 shareholders with employee shares exempt; and secondary markets — Forge Global, Nasdaq Private Market, EquityZen — let insiders cash out without a prospectus. The IPO became a liquidity event rather than a necessity. Only AI's bottomless capital hunger, Jones notes, is pushing OpenAI and Anthropic toward the public markets at all.•       Founders Choosing Their Bosses. The founder-friendly model gives startup founders super-voting shares — ten votes to one — letting them control the board that supposedly controls them. Venture capitalists lost their traditional power to discipline or dismiss a misbehaving founder: Uber's investors, lacking the votes to oust Travis Kalanick, had to stage a coup via press leak. And the VCs are conflicted anyway — exposing fraud destroys the exit they're invested in. Jones' answer to the Google-and-Facebook counterargument is historical: dual-class structures were invented at those companies precisely to coax their founders into IPOs, and they now arrive by the second or third funding round — so the governance rot starts earlier and, as Zuckerberg demonstrates, persists indefinitely after the public offering.•       The Fraud Files — and the Social Bill. FTX. Theranos, which hid parts of its lab from inspecting regulators. WeWork, whose IPO filing finally told the truth about the spending and self-dealing — whereupon the public refused to buy, the company limped through a SPAC into bankruptcy, and employees who had borrowed money to exercise options and pay taxes were left holding worthless paper. (The VC money lost, Jones notes, is substantially public pension money anyway.) Beyond the frauds lies the social bill of the below-cost blitzscale: taxi drivers destroyed and then prices raised; passengers assaulted under lax background checks; Airbnb's uncollected occupancy taxes, underinvested security, and name-based discrimination. A culture of outrunning the law, Jones argues, gets baked in — and firms powerful enough simply change the law, as Uber and Lyft did to driver-classification rules in California and Massachusetts.•       Not Teddy — Franklin. Asked whether the coming reckoning demands a new Teddy Roosevelt — Casey Michel's prescription on this show days earlier — Jones reaches a generation later: Franklin's New Deal securities acts of 1933 and 1934, which made disclosure the price of other people's money and worked for ninety years. Since the 1980s the architecture has been chipped into optionality, and the SEC is now dismantling Sarbanes-Oxley and Dodd-Frank protections while deregulating public markets too. Her remedies: disclosure to employees paid in options they cannot value, and disclosure in the largest private offerings — because investors of any sophistication cannot make responsible decisions while investing blind. Andrew's closing verdict: I hope she's wrong. I suspect she's right. About the Guest Renée M. Jones is Professor of Law and Dr. Thomas F. Carney Distinguished Scholar at Boston College Law School, where she has taught corporate and securities law for nearly a quarter century. From 2021 to 2023 she served as Director of the Division of Corporation Finance at the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission — the nation's chief regulator of capital formation. A graduate of Princeton University and Harvard Law School, she is the author of Untamed Unicorns: Why Startup Finance Is Broken and How to Fix It (Harvard University Press, August 4, 2026). References: •       Untamed Unicorns: Why Startup Finance Is Broken and How to Fix It by Renée M. Jones (Harvard University Press, August 4, 2026). Jennifer Taub: “This essential book, replete with details and drama.”•       The National Securities Markets Improvement Act (1996) and the JOBS A...

Amazon went public three years after it was founded. SpaceX stayed private for 24 years. What changed and why does it matter? The standard story is that companies avoid an IPO because public markets carry too many government rules and too many lawyers looking to sue. Renee Jones, law professor, former SEC official, and author of the new book Untamed Unicorns: Why Startup Finance Is Broken and How to Fix It, makes the opposite case. Jones argues what changed was the deregulation of private markets, driven by decades of industry lobbying. Due to decisions in Washington, companies became able to raise billions privately and there was no reason to go public . You could get the capital and keep total control, without ever having to disclose anything to regulators. If you've never bought a share of a startup, you might assume none of this touches you. But most of the money flowing into these private markets comes from pension funds and retirement accounts, meaning ordinary savers are already invested in companies whose books they'll never see. Connect with us:

In Silicon Valley, a "unicorn" is a private startup with a net worth of $1 billion. As the term suggests, these were once incredibly rare creatures. Most startups would go public within 4-7 years, long before they had a $1 billion valuation. But two key pieces of legislation made the rare into the rampaging, starting in 1996. In her new book, Untamed Unicorns: Why Startup Finance is Broken and How to Fix It, Renée M. Jones warns that by staying private and shielded from oversight and disclosure, these startups could be endangering the stability of our financial system. Jones, who served as the director of the Securities and Exchange Commission's Division of Corporation Finance under President Joe Biden, shows how these tactics were used (and misused) by startups like FTX, WeWork, Uber and Theranos. "One of the big concerns is that startups are taking advantage of the secrecy to engage in, we could call it 'antisocial' or 'unsocial' behavior, but there are not really any mechanisms for the public to really see what's going on," Jones tells Modern Law Library host Lee Rawles. "If Theranos's investors and directors understood that they were going to have to go public and prove that the product worked, they would've been more demanding on Elizabeth Holmes most likely, and they wouldn't have been able to get away with all of those lies." A big concern Jones has is with the recent push by private equity companies to allow regular retail investors and 401K plan managers to invest in these opaque and risky private startup companies. "That includes private equity, it includes infrastructure. It could even include crypto. Again, these are illiquid assets," says Jones. "There's no ready market for those shares. And they're high risk assets and there's not a lot of information to even know, 'What am I actually invested in?' " "If the Department of Labor's plans are adopted, you're going to have to really work hard to avoid having any private equity in your 401k plans," Jones warns. "There's a risk that these overvalued assets are going to be transferred from professional investors who can act to protect their interest to sort of your average, unsophisticated 401k saver." In this episode, Jones shares her advice for reforming the oversight of these companies, warning signs that financial novices should be on the look for, and introduces a new creature to the financial bestiary: the centicorn.

“I am not Nicholas Rossi!” gasps Arthur Knight through an oxygen mask in March 2022. Recently discharged from a Covid ward in Glasgow, he's in a wheelchair. The police say he's Nicholas Rossi, suspected of faking his death and wanted for rape in Utah. The story makes headlines globally.When journalist Jane MacSorley meets Arthur Knight and his wife Miranda, she thinks the police have made a mistake. She embarks on a yearlong investigation, making a unique discovery which changes everything. Listen to I Am Not Nicholas Season 1 on Audible or wherever you get your podcasts. You can binge all episodes early and ad-free by joining Audible on the Audible App or on Apple Podcasts.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Acclaimed debut novelist Austin Taylor spoke with us about the pressure cooker of Harvard life, studying AI law in the heart of Silicon Valley, and the inspiration behind her debut set in the biotech startup world of NOTES ON INFINITY. Austin Taylor graduated from Harvard University in 2021 with a joint degree in Chemistry and English. She is currently pursuing a JD at Stanford Law School as a Knight-Hennessy Scholar, with a focus on generative AI, copyright, and authorship. Her debut novel, Notes on Infinity, was named an Oprah Daily “Best Summer Read,” a Zibby Owens' “Summer Read,” a Goodreads “Hottest Debut of 2025,” and is inspired in part by her undergraduate studies, peers, and lab work in Harvard's chemistry department. Booklist wrote of the book, "With a trajectory that echoes that of Elizabeth Holmes' Theranos, Taylor's debut provides an insider's glimpse into the high-stakes Ivy League climate and the potentially devastating personal consequences for those caught up in ambition beyond their abilities." Austin is also a private pilot, a registered Maine guide, and a bassist. [Discover The Writer Files Extra: Get 'The Writer Files' Podcast Delivered Straight to Your Inbox at writerfiles.fm] [If you're a fan of The Writer Files, please click FOLLOW to automatically see new interviews. And drop us a rating or a review wherever you listen] In this file Austin Taylor, Milena, and I discussed: What it was like to grow up on a dairy farm in Maine Writing her debut novel during her gap year How The Social Network helped her capture the "momentum and excitement” of startup life Her morning ritual and daily word counts Why bad writing days are "almost always because [she's] not reading enough" good stuff Balancing law school and writing her sophomore novel And a lot more! Show Notes: ElevenReader is a new, award-winning audio app for iOS, Android, Web Get up to $200 off Square hardware when you sign up at square.com/go/files! #squarepod austintaylorwrites.com Notes on Infinity: A Novel by Austin Taylor Austin Taylor on Instagram⁠ Milena Gonzalez | Writer | Reader | Book Reviewer diary_of_a_book_babe on Instagram Kelton Reid Instagram Kelton Reid on Twitter Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Underperformers don't change because you ask them nicely. They only change when they can no longer avoid the consequences of not delivering.Every time you swoop in and rescue someone, you're filling that performance gap on their behalf. At the same time, you're reinforcing the fact that they never have to meet an acceptable standard, if they don't want to. You might think you're just delivering the outcome: but you're also unintentionally condoning unacceptable performance.As the leader, you're responsible for the culture… and that's a cancer in your culture. Every minute you spend doing someone else's job is a minute you're not doing your own. While your team is rewarded with extra work, they see you rewarding the poor performer with more of your time and attention.In this Q&A episode we cover:Why rescuing an underperforming peer is a disaster waiting to happen: if it works they take the credit, and if it fails you're the scapegoat;The soft escalation technique that puts your boss in the picture without starting a political war you can't winAn influencing technique that brings pressure to bear on a stubborn peer, without going over their headWhy your people can predict exactly what you'll tolerate, and how that sets the performance barThe reason why nobody warns you when things are going wrong, and what you can learn from big corporate failures, like Theranos, that suppress bad newsWhy an empty house is better than a bad tenant: the case for exiting your worst performer, even in a tight labour marketHow to farewell someone with dignity, while still taking the opportunity for the rest of the team to learn from the cautionary tale.————————Podcast————————You can connect with me at:Website: https://www.yourceomentor.comFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/yourceomentorInstagram: https://www.instagram.com/yourceomentorLinkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/in/martin-moore-075b001/Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/@YourCEOMentor————————Our mission here at Your CEO Mentor is to improve the quality of leaders, globally. Your boss wants more with less. Your team wants less, full stop. You're stuck in the middle.Leadership Beyond the Theory is 9 weeks to promotion-ready leadership.2,800+ leaders from 150+ organisations. 99% would recommend.Doors are now open for the June 2026 cohort, they close Fri 26 June!Join the cohort here: https://go.leadershipbeyondthetheory.com/ Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Just in time for America's 250th birthday, follow Dan Taberski (Hysterical, 9/12, Missing Richard Simmons) as he sets off on his most complicated quest yet: to reclaim the manifesto and write his own. Dan attempts to rescue the manifesto as a form from the sweaty clutches of cynical politicians and mass shooters and return it to its rightful place: with the artists, the warriors, the visionaries, and the mildly crazy regular folks with something to say, the passion to say it, and the courage to do something about it. From Audible Originals and Please & Thanks Productions, this 6-part series explores the power of the manifesto and asks: Can we get inspired again… and can we do it without a bullet?Listen to Dan Taberski's Manifesto wherever you get your podcasts. Or binge all episodes of Manifesto ad-free right now on Audible. Start your Audible subscription in the Audible App or on Apple Podcasts. See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Why do start-ups fail? And what if more of those failures are avoidable than we think? There is an enormous mythology around start-ups. Perhaps the biggest is the often-repeated claim that 90% of them fail — as if failure is simply the natural, almost inevitable price of trying to build something new. My guest on this episode of The Decision-Making Studio Podcast is Dr Bernard Bulkin OBE. Bernie spent more than two decades in venture capital, investing in Silicon Valley and London. He's been an angel investor, a founder and a company leader, and has served on boards ranging from start-ups to large public companies. He's also an Emeritus Professorial Fellow at the University of Cambridge and has served as a Vice President of the Energy Institute. And, as his biography rather refreshingly points out, he has also founded, led and invested in companies that have failed. His book is Why Start-Ups Fail: Avoiding the Traps on the Path to Commercial Success. And I think it's a rather counter-cultural business book. Bernie's argument is not that start-ups don't fail. Of course they do. It's that many of the reasons they fail are understandable, and, crucially, avoidable. If you're a founder, or thinking about starting a business, Bernie offers something approaching a masterclass here in why start-ups fail and what can be done differently. But this isn't really a business podcast. The Decision-Making Studio is about decisions and uncertainty. And what interested me in Bernie's work is what happens when you look beneath the start-up context. We talk about engineers and the particular ways they can think about businesses. We talk about money, and why most start-ups need more than they think they do. We get into behavioural science, myths and assumptions, and self-awareness: understanding yourself, your own limitations, and the role that plays in the decisions you make. So yes, this is something of a masterclass in start-ups. But it's also a conversation about something much broader: why failure is not always inevitable, how our own thinking can help create it, and whether, by understanding the traps we repeatedly fall into, we might make better decisions. In start-ups, certainly. But well beyond them too. In this episode (00:03:00) Why do start-ups fail? (00:10:00) The 'horrible premise' of a business based on failure (00:21:00) Why start-up failure is not inevitable (00:32:00) Engineers, founders and ways of thinking (00:44:00) Money, investment and the power law (00:56:00) Behavioural science, judgement and the Theranos case (01:09:00) Self-awareness and better decision-making Chapter timings are approximate. Links and resources Bernie Bulkin and Why Start-Ups Fail Why Start-Ups Fail — Bloomsbury Bernie Bulkin — Bloomsbury author profile The Power Law: Venture Capital and the Art of Disruption — Sebastian Mallaby An examination of venture capital and the power-law dynamics that shape the industry. The Power Law — Penguin 7 Powers: The Foundations of Business Strategy — Hamilton Helmer Helmer's framework for understanding the persistent sources of competitive advantage. 7 Powers — official website Theranos and Elizabeth Holmes The Theranos case comes up in our discussion of technology, leadership, governance and the stories that can take hold around start-ups. For a detailed account, see John Carreyrou's Bad Blood: Secrets and Lies in a Silicon Valley Startup. Bad Blood — Penguin Random House More from Bernie Professor Bernie Bulkin — Murray Edwards College, Cambridge  

Dead On Arrival: What was just Hype and what was just wrong Timing? Some technologies and products get over-hyped, and never seem to come to fruition? Some just come to fruition, but years or even decades later? In this episode of Tech Deciphered, what is Dead On Arrival versus just wrong timing Navigation: Intro The Fork Cold Open General Magic The Metaverse Dead on Arrival The soon to be Resurrected… Conclusion Our co-hosts: Bertrand Schmitt, Entrepreneur in Residence at Red River West, co-founder of App Annie / Data.ai, business angel, advisor to startups and VC funds, @bschmitt Nuno Goncalves Pedro, Investor, Managing Partner, Founder at Chamaeleon, @ngpedro Our show: Tech DECIPHERED brings you the Entrepreneur and Investor views on Big Tech, VC and Start-up news, opinion pieces and research. We decipher their meaning, and add inside knowledge and context. Being nerds, we also discuss the latest gadgets and pop culture news Subscribe To Our Podcast Bertrand SchmittIntroduction Welcome to Tech Deciphered episode 78, Dead on Arrival. Was it just hype or just wrong timing? In this episode, we are going to discuss two different types of businesses that as an investor, as an entrepreneur, you want to think carefully about. Looking back, you want to understand better what happened. If we take dead on arrival, we’re talking about businesses, technologies that maybe the tech work fine, but actually no one cared about it, no one wanted it. It’s really a mismatch in terms of what consumer want versus what you are trying to deliver. It’s a classic example of a solution finding for a problem. On the other hand, will it happen but not like that, not now? It’s a type of business where we were too early. We tried to make it work, but actually the technology is not ready now, but it might become ready in the future. As an entrepreneur, as an investor, obviously, you want to make sure you are not in one of these two technologies, one of these two categories. But it’s really a useful lesson to learn which situation you might be in because it will help you make better decision and pick better industries going forward. Nuno, what’s your take on this tough analysis?Nuno Goncalves PedroYeah, in hindsight, everything looks like, “Oh, of course, this wasn’t meant to work,” etc. But here we’re going to take a stab, as you mentioned, at things that are just wrong timing. They might have failed miserably in the past, but they might work in the future. The Fork To have this stake on the ground approach to it, as we’ve had in previous episodes, of defining exactly what we think will happen, but just not like that, versus the dead-on-arrival, which is a little bit more of a hardcore view on it. To your point, we want to really split between those two things because in some ways people are like, “Well, are we ever going to go and have different ways of interacting, for example, in terms of input and output, like with glasses or things like that, that really scale to become pretty pervasive?” We probably would agree that, “Yes, that will happen”. Maybe not in the way that we’ve anticipated until now, and certainly it’s going to take longer than we’ve expected. In some ways, the “will happen, not like that” is a little bit like Amara’s law or Nuno’s law, as referred to in the past. We tend to overestimate the speed at which we get to a revolution, underestimate impact. The “will happen, not like that” will probably fit into that. They will have probably bigger impact than we thought they would, but they will just take longer. Therefore, the solutions we’ve had until now are not great solutions. Whereas the dead-on-arrival, we’re saying, “Hey, we don’t think actually this works.” It’s to your point, not solving a problem that actually needs to be solved, or it’s solving it in the wrong way. Yeah, it’s basically an attempt to really frame, if you’re an entrepreneur, if you’re a venture capitalist, if you’re someone who is an angel investor and is looking at the market right now, what things should you put some real money and real resources, real time behind versus not, and really share that with you guys: our audience.Bertrand SchmittCold Open I always like to go back to a company called General Magic, a company that was legendary in Silicon Valley, spun out of Apple in the 1990s. There was even a movie made about General Magic. It’s a company that tried to basically build the first modern smartphone with touchscreens, app ecosystem. The only issue was it was years before the technology existed to support it. But Nokia at the time was less ambitious and more practical with what the technology was able to do at the time. But what’s interesting with this company is that obviously the smartphone was coming, just took 10 more years, 15 more years. Interestingly enough, some of the people in the team ended up being very successful in that exact space. Tony Fadell, for instance, who ended up creating the iPhone, co-create at least, and Andy Rubin, who end up building up Android, selling that to Google and leading the charge with Google Android.Nuno Goncalves PedroYeah, a very successful team. Tony Fadell, obviously, later on did Nest as well. Megan Smith, who was later the Chief Technology Officer of the US. A lot of people that came out of it that did a lot of important things. To be honest, I think a lot of the technology that was developed that was in some way a capacity or that are reused later on by some of these team members. I’m not saying they were infringing on any IP, but definitely there was a lot of reuse of tech. But it was too soon, right? They were doing something that was truly ambitious too soon. But a lot of these principles, a lot of these things ended up manifesting themselves, and particularly in the iPhone later on and in that deployment. Another such example is actually the metaverse. We did two episodes back in the day, a long time ago, on the metaverse. We debunked it a little bit. Back then, I think it was a very nuanced debunking, if I recall it correctly, Bertrand, because we were saying, “Hey, it’s going to happen in some ways, but it’s an evolution, not a revolution,” not in the way that we saw definitionally. We were huge fans of Matthew Ball and his analysis around media, but somehow we disagreed, I remember, with his definition of what the metaverse is and how it will look like. There’s no doubt that there’s going to be a metaverse in the future, probably metaverses in the future before there’s any given unification. In those metaverses, we do believe. But this whole hype cycle around metaverse and what’s happening clearly didn’t work out well, as proven also by all the write-offs done by Meta on their metaverse stuff. That much must have hurt. It’s related to AR and VR as well and to the enriched reality positioning of a lot of these technologies, which we’ll talk about later. But, again, it was probably something that’s going to happen. It’s going to happen likely in a different product manifestation as the one that was anticipated by a lot of the pundits that opined on what’s happening around metaverse in the future. But it’s going to happen. It’s just going to take longer. It’s going to probably come from angles of entry that are likely not what people had anticipated earlier on. Maybe it’s from gaming, maybe from something else. But definitely it’s going to happen.Bertrand SchmittYes, and you could argue that Apple did a similar mistake with the Vision Pro. I think the Vision Pro is the worst launch of an Apple product. When we say launch, it’s been three years maybe?Nuno Goncalves PedroSince the Newton, maybe?Bertrand SchmittYes, that’s my point. You have to go back a really long time to have such a disastrous launch. I think for me, it’s very interesting because it’s really a category where on one side there is a metaverse of some sort. You should argue if you are just using Twitter, or Facebook, these are some parallel universe in parallel to your real life. But the full on metaverse where you need some extra super heavy glasses to make it work, that simply has not worked. Don’t get me wrong, there are some super small, narrow cases where your heavy VR glasses makes sense for some training, for some simulation, for some light gaming. But given the weight, the disconnection from the real world, it has really never taken fire. Even at cheaper price like Meta was able to do, at more expensive price, much higher quality like the Vision Pro did. It looks like people have an issue with putting heavy glasses on top of them. We’ll talk later about the other side: AR glasses. But the traditional metaverse, heavy glasses, VR glasses, yes, it’s not feeling right, and I don’t think it will ever be right. It needs a different form factor to go at scale.Nuno Goncalves PedroDefinitely fundamental shifts on the metaverse. Just a quick reminder, Meta actually changed their name because of metaverse.Bertrand SchmittYes. Nuno Goncalves PedroIt’s not just that they’re writing off the investments, it’s their name is apparently wrong. It didn’t really happen in that way. You are saying that this persistent embodied virtual world, which was the early definitions of what a metaverse was, didn’t really happen until now. It might happen at some point, but not in that way. But, obviously, a lot of the enablement layers are still work in progress, right? Real-time 3D, presence, avatars, all of these things are moving on. A lot of these enablers will be ready once there is a time where these technologies and businesses that are fundamentally anchored around these technologies will emerge. It’s, again, right components, wrong product alignment, but at the same time, it will happen, just not yet.Bertrand SchmittAgain, I think we’re going to face a split of a virtual reality light that you can call AR with very light glasses that are not a pain to wear, that are more limited, especially today or the next 5 years. The VR glasses that will stay a niche product that are useful for some use cases. Do you want to do a flight simulation? You want to do military training? There will be use for that. But beyond that, it’s more limited. We forgot to talk about the Google Glass. This one was an early, early AR glasses. But, again, here we go back to the capabilities. Simply, we were not there at the time.Nuno Goncalves PedroDead on Arrival We’re moving to Dead on Arrival. What things do we think are relatively dead on arrival? We’ll be nuanced on a couple of these aspects. Not everything is totally dead on arrival. But maybe let’s start with a good one, which is some of the crypto summer promises, particularly around NFTs, non-fungible tokens, and the decentralization of everything, the tokenization of everything. That didn’t quite work the way people thought it would. A lot of people were very happy for a period of time that they had some NFT that was worth a ton of money. Good for them. I hope they sold it back then. Some did actually, fortunately for them, but most of them did not. As an asset and the tokenization element, we’re not questioning that tokenization itself doesn’t make any sense. But from my perspective, a lot of the elements of tokenization plus the tokenization of everything don’t make necessarily imminent sense. I think we’re going to have a world that not everything is going to be tokenized, and a world where, to be honest, having the latest ape token as an NFT is maybe not something I really need. It’s dead on arrival in some ways. What do you think, Bertrand?Bertrand SchmittIt feels like it’s a tale of two worlds. On one side, there was clearly exuberance and bullshit. All these cryptocurrencies that make no sense, have no values. The NFTs are the same: no values, no sense, no logic in them. At the same time, we can see that Bitcoin, Ethereum, and few others were significant products, invention, that have a current total market value that is significant. I would say we can see that step by step, little by little, there is some tokenization happening, but it has been much more narrow than what was initially thought, expected. But it’s happening step by step. I think there is value in tokenization, but definitely not as much value as people expected. I think for one simple reason: it’s very expensive to set up in the sense that it doesn’t work so well, actually. It requires a lot of computing power for stuff that might not justify it as simple as that. Why do you want to replace a very efficient, superfast database by something slow, expensive to maintain? Why? You need to have real reason for that. I think in most situations, there was not a real justification to make that switch. I think, again, there is a niche for tokenization. It’s getting used. Obviously, there is stablecoin as well that are working and provide value. But definitely, the use cases have narrowed. The success stories have been few and far between. It’s definitely a space, but I don’t think it has lived up to the expectations. The expectations were simply quite insane in terms of what to expect, and it failed to achieve that. I don’t think it qualifies as a true revolution. It has been successful again in our situation: in Bitcoin, in Ethereum, in some tokenization. But beyond that, it was not the dramatic change that people were picturing.Nuno Goncalves PedroYeah, it’s been successful and there is a security, in this case, a currency of types, that links to the value of that specific network and the utility of that specific network. But on this case, in particular, the NFT stuff, I think there were two core premises that were very valuable about it. One was the premise of digital collectibles, the element itself being collectible and the fact that I have a unique one was only minted one. It’s a unique thing out there. I think at some point people forgot that actually digital collectibles are not as valuable as people think they are. Physical collectibles are more valuable. The reason for that is just human nature. I want to have something in physicality. I want to have something that I can show people, etc, that has a physicality to it. Digital collectibles, I think there was a problem fundamentally in part of the articulation of NFTs that reside in the value of digitization of these collectibles in and of themselves. I think that was part of the problem. The second problem was really the notion of provenance, the notion of certification, the notion of “this is what it says it is, and nobody can say this is something else.” This notion of provenance. That, I think, fits more into the point you were making, which is the point around use cases. This doesn’t fit all use cases. The provenance piece and the certification piece doesn’t fit for all use cases. Probably it might fit actually even more for actual physical assets where you want to have a certificate, that thing is what it says it is, but it’s actually maybe a physical asset rather than a digital asset. Again, lo and behold, it doesn’t apply to all the use cases that relate to provenance. I don’t think we need to tokenize all the provenance ledgers in the world for this to be working well. Again, it was a little bit of an overreach. In some ways, all these players were very happy. There was a lot of bullshit. To be honest, this is an area that I do think there was actual active fraud. All due respect to a lot of the players in the market, but there was active fraud. Honestly, there was bullshit.Bertrand SchmittI agree with you. I was going to say that it’s one of the rare sector in technology where I think frauds, scams were prevalent. Yes, you might have some shitty startups in general and stuff, and there might be fraud. I think true fraud is rare. True scam is rare. But here for NFTs, for cryptocurrencies, that was the majority you could argue. That’s the part that I never really liked in all that industry. If you look at NFT, personally, I never understood the concept. For me, it made simply no sense because, yes, you can say, “Oh, I have created this rare digital token.” But sure, so what? Who cares? Who cares? You can have hundreds, thousands, millions of unique digital tokens. How does it matter? What’s the use case? What’s the connection? You can show it on your screen, but then how is it unique anymore? It’s not like people have to come to your house and check stuff on site or something like physical art. No, not at all. I don’t know. I think it was surprisingly true bullshit. Again, I’m still a believer in Bitcoin. I think there is true logic to have a separate virtual digital currency. But you don’t need hundreds of them. You just need one, maybe two for some variation. The same for tokenization, it doesn’t need to happen everywhere. Just need to happen where there is really strong real logical value. Beyond that, there is no point.Nuno Goncalves PedroYeah, makes sense. Maybe moving to our next one. I think we discussed this in a previous episode, which was the whole 3D TV stuff. We just don’t think that’s the product, right? It’s not going to be a 3D TV. I believe when we discussed this in the episode—I don’t want to lie too much—but I believe that’s what we came up with… It looks a bit more holographic or the manifestation comes through other mechanisms like glasses, etc. But we thought it was just dead on arrival. Nobody wanted to have glasses on the couch to watch the 3D TV, but also the 3D TVs themselves they tried to develop were very holographic, were super clunky and very heavy. In some ways, I think TV manifestation somehow is not a great manifestation for this. I put it on the dead-on-arrival pile. I have one, just to be clear. I still have one.Bertrand SchmittYeah, but it’s a weird one because if you remember, it suddenly happened. I remember being shocked as a consumer. Suddenly everyone talks about 3D TV. In a few months, 3D TVs are all out everywhere. Then after a few years, no one bothered to keep adding that because consumers didn’t care. I think one issue was, I think it has only worked with Blu-rays. I don’t think any streaming service supported that. With the rise of streaming, that was certainly a pretty big issue in the first place. Interestingly, in the movie theaters, do we still have movies being shown in 3D? I think we still have a few, but it’s really few and far between the movie theater.Nuno Goncalves PedroYeah, IMAX won on that format, the high-end format, IMAX won, not the 3D thing.Bertrand SchmittBut, yeah, if you’re on the TV at home, you don’t want to bother. Maybe if you’re in the movie theater, more high-end experience, you are willing to wear special glasses. I think it makes sense. I think, I guess at home, we are just too busy doing multiple things at once. Rarely sitting all around 2 hours for a movie, so you watch your phone, you check on something else. You don’t want to have these glasses on top that block you from the rest of what’s happening at home.Nuno Goncalves PedroYeah, it just didn’t work. I’m not sure it will work in any case, so we’ll see. But definitely, I don’t think that’s the right form factor.Bertrand SchmittIt technically worked, but practically, it was not accepted by consumers.Nuno Goncalves PedroLet me rephrase. I think it was a solution to a problem nobody thought they had. The execution of the product was the wrong one. It’s like that’s not what people wanted. Maybe we do want some 3D immersive experience, but that’s not the 3D immersive experience that we want, not manifested like that in effect, with its limitations, etc.Bertrand SchmittI want to say that we are not denigrating some of these experiments. Me, I still remember putting a Vision Pro and watching some content that is natively created by Apple for the Vision Pro. It’s an amazing magical experience, truly. But at the same time, I’m always worrying to have to think I’m going to spend 30 minutes putting my Vision Pro on my head. It’s heavy, it’s painful. Again, we go back to, I’m disconnected from everything else, and I don’t like that.Nuno Goncalves PedroWhen there was real technological development, like the case of 3D TVs, that technology development may have served other purposes. Again, we applaud those that put the money where their mouth was, the companies, the individuals that wanted to move forward some of these technology stacks, maybe less so the people that just decided to create NFTs for the sake of it with apes. No attack on those guys specifically, but just to create a specific view on that. But there’s a lot of stuff we’re talking about today which is actually great technological development. There’s stuff that came out of it that is very, very valuable technological development. Maybe to our next one on mobility, physical mobility. The Segway. Everyone’s like, “Oh, this is going to change how we move around the world, in particular for shorter distances, etc.” Well, apparently no. Apparently, it’s not super intuitive. There are still Segways out there for use by police forces, tours, and all that stuff. People say, “Oh, it’s…” No, well, it never scaled. It wasn’t changed. It didn’t change how relatively short local mobility was going to be done. I think part of it is actually the problem with the product. The product is not as intuitive as people thought it would be, and it has other issues around that in terms of security and safety. If you’re going to have a device or something that moves you around, what’s the minimum-accepted level of security that you would have. The fact that you have to incline to move it is actually not super as initially some probably people thought it’s actually not as intuitive as some might have thought it was. I think it’s a dead-on-arrival play. The vehicles of the future, I’m not sure, look like that at all. Happy to eat my words down the road, but I don’t think so.Bertrand SchmittYes, and I remember the massive hype at the start of this product. They were hiding it, but still telling you, We have seen it. That’s true. It’s going to totally change how cities are planned. I mean, the level of hype and bullshit was insane before the launch of the product and before anyone outside of a few knew what it looked like. Then we saw what it looked like, and it was on one side, an engineering marvel, the self-stabilization system was new. I mean, very few people had seen something like this before. At the same time, as you said, the issue was what happens if it loses battery? What happens if you fall from it? Quite frankly, if you look at today’s modern electric scooter, you have 95% of the value of a Segway without any of the downsides. You don’t need to learn a new way to do things. If you lose battery, it still works. I guess you can still push it. It’s not too expensive. You don’t have massive computers to just make it work. You don’t have massive robotics. It’s clearly an impressive engineering solution. But the exact example of a solution to a problem people didn’t have, when ultimately a much more simple and elegant solution was there for people who care. To be clear, you still could use a regular bike. The alternative was still your regular bike. But now you have electric scooters that are a clear, closer alternative, I guess, in spirit to what was supposed to be the Segway. Sometimes, let’s be careful. Overengineering might not be the answer.Nuno Goncalves PedroEven scooters, which are, to be honest, I would argue a much easier philosophical view of how mobility should be done and a much easier form factor, so to speak, in terms of mobility, even those won’t have wide adoption to everyone. It’s not like everyone’s going to use a scooter. The bar for a scooter is much less than a bar for a Segway.Bertrand SchmittYes. I think in a way, the electric scooter is showing us in some ways that the limit of the dream is that even well-executed, even cheap, even easy to use, even low-risk in a way, there is still only so much that people are willing to use it because it’s a pain to bring with you everywhere. Actually, in some ways, you could argue it has only worked with this distributed platform, like lime and others that let you take one and drop it when you are done using it. But that was not a model that was workable for the Segway. I totally agree. You could argue that bikes are still the gold standard or now electric bikes are still the gold standard for who want that level of mobility.Nuno Goncalves PedroWell, the next one is to be a favorite of, I guess, everyone that didn’t invest in them, which is Juicero, which was the machine that basically created Juices out of squeezing a bag. I’m going to be nice here to… There were a bunch of well-known investors. They raised, I think, 120 million or something like that.Bertrand SchmittThat’s insane.Nuno Goncalves PedroIt is insane. But maybe the vision was not that vision. It was something grandiose and the complexity around dealing with liquids and whatever. I’m not really sure we didn’t pass or invest on the company.Bertrand SchmittBig old juice bags.Nuno Goncalves PedroMaybe. You’re being facetious. Anyway, I’m not trying to attack the guys who actually invested in this, the investors that put money into this. But it was basically one of these examples that we’re trying to solve a problem that didn’t exist. It’s like a solution for a problem that doesn’t exist. I can just squeeze a bag of concentrated thing and make a juice. I can do something around the juice. As I said, maybe the big vision was well beyond that, and I’m not sure many of us will ever know what the big vision actually was. But yes, it was a solution, a $400 machine to a problem that nobody really had. That didn’t work.Bertrand SchmittI think the most crazy part of the story is that the business exploded when there was this Bloomberg reporter that showed that you could squeeze the bag with your hands without a machine and get the same juice. That’s pretty insane. That’s just so unbelievable.Nuno Goncalves PedroThe funny part of the story is MSCHF, this company that does all their on-point, slightly artistic, whatever, one-off, drops, etc, etc. Shout out to Gabriel. Gabe Wally, who was the founder there. This is funny. They actually did a collectible series of figurines of that startup toys, of which Juicero was one of them. Jibo, which I don’t think you’d appreciate. Bertrand, and the Theranos minilab. So someone is also making money on that, which is funny. So well done, MSCHF.Bertrand SchmittWhy not? Why not? Maybe we can go quickly over Lytro. This one was, I would say, brilliant technology. It was a camera able to capture light in a different way. You could actually dynamically change focus after the picture was taken. So something quite impressive, and I still remember looking at their products and thinking, should I get one? At the same time where it didn’t work, it was too limited in terms of image quality versus shooting the real picture. It was very tough to sell as an independent device because either you’re in the phone or you are in a DSLR, but there was no spot in between. In some ways, phones solved the issue not directly, but they kept adding cameras. At some point, you had not one, but two, but three, but four, but five cameras in your phone. You had a specific mode for anything you needed, and that’s it. Phone manufacturers managed to convince people they should pay for all these cameras, or provide a low-end version if you don’t want to pay for all these cameras. But yes, very interesting technology that did not manage to find a go-to market.Nuno Goncalves PedroYes, it’s falling in love with a technology solution that, as you said, was incredible, and not falling in love with what problem you are actually trying to solve. Because a lot of the elements of the problem that you’re trying to solve, either you take another picture. All due respect, instead of me trying to change the field of view, etc, and the focus, post picture taken, I take another picture. To be honest, you can take thousands of pictures now with different setups. Also, ignoring the fact that this was pre this whole AI boom. So obviously, that one I will be kind on. But with the AI boom, you can do a lot of things to pictures and changes and stuff like that. All of that changes the game in and of itself. Obviously, Lytro or Lytro, not sure how you spell them, or how you say their name, but they failed before that. So again, this was super great tech, great investors, good investors on board, but just nobody wanted that device. Why would I want this thing? A total failure on arrival. I think one also other aspect of it that may have been misinterpreted and underestimated by some of the early investors, certainly in the company, is the value chain. There is a value chain for cameras, for SLRs, DSLRs, etc, etc. They know what they’re doing, and they’re doing their own level of innovation. In some ways, that fits squarely into that value chain, which I’m sure is a complex value chain to manage in and of itself. Maybe that’s created its own dynamics as well.Bertrand SchmittI think they try to insert themselves in the value chain, but I’m not sure first that they managed to get technology as small as it should have been. They simply didn’t convince anyone. The Sony or Nikon of the world, or the Apple or Google of the world, to use their technology in their phones, because no one really saw the value, per se. One thing to keep in mind, using their technology means you had a big trade-off in terms of megapixels. Actually, you will benefit from that great effect around the focus that can move anywhere after the fact. But in exchange, you had to lose dramatically the number of megapixels. At the time, all the rage was about how do I get more megapixels for my phone with good image quality. That was all that you were selling to consumers. Consumers would not have bought 10 times less megapixels for a weird benefit that at the time no one cared about. I think you are very right to introduce the fact that, of course, they could not have guessed at the time, but today you can get for free this refocusing effect with AI, actually.Nuno Goncalves PedroThat’s exactly the point I was making on the value chain. They went into a value chain that has a lot of players in it, and they got kicked in the butt anyway, because people were like, Why would I adopt it? They didn’t serve the purpose of the use case or the user flow. They didn’t anticipate competitive dynamics to it. Then they actually went straight up into a technology plus IP logic on a value chain that would be like, “Hey, dudes, just get out of here.” What would be the incentive for people to bring them on board? It’s like in some ways, they did all the mistakes under the book in that sense. Again, I’m not trying to diss the company, the founders, the investors, but it feels that was the problem in the end.Bertrand SchmittYes.Nuno Goncalves PedroShall we do some rapid fire dead-on-arrivals?Bertrand SchmittYes. A fan favorite. Have you tried a keyboard projector on?Nuno Goncalves PedroYes. I think I mentioned that in a previous episode, I did have one of the early ones and whatever. Yes, somehow we forgot that there’s other best, better ways of input, maybe voice would be a better way of input if that’s the problem, but anyway.Bertrand SchmittThis one is interesting because you just use it for one minute, and you discover it’s horrible.Nuno Goncalves PedroIt’s a horrible experience.Bertrand SchmittYou have to type on it. You don’t see exactly where you type. Each time you type, you are hurting your fingers because it’s not a smooth keyboard feeling, but you are tapping a solid surface. That’s amazing that it went to manufacturing, and basically no one gave feedback. There is no way it’s working. No way technically working, but practically, no one would want to use that.Nuno Goncalves PedroIt’s bad in all aspects. The finger’s touching. It needs to be a very over-engineered experience for it to actually detect the key stroking and all that stuff. It’s an over-engineered solution by default. It’s not private because once you have the keyboard projector, you’re like, “Where am I keyboarding projecting on?” It’s something that others can see. There are other alternatives that are better. The keyboards on our phones are pretty good these days, with autocorrection in most cases, I wouldn’t say all cases. Voice can also be an interesting replacement to that. If that’s what you’re going for, voice recognition has improved dramatically over the last few years. Again, it’s one of these, “Yeah, cool.”Bertrand SchmittIt’s clear that, first, touch has replaced a physical keyboard where you need one. And two, now voice recognition is getting better for sure.Nuno Goncalves PedroThe opposite side is that voice assistants were going to take over everything, that everything was going to be voice assistant-led. Alexa is going to run your life. You’re going to have games for voice. I actually have a good friend of mine who did a startup in that space. Actually, the company got acquired, and everything’s going to be voice, which, as we know, is also not true. We need to visualize sometimes. Sometimes we still want to write because we want either the added value of privacy or of expression at some standpoint. There are a lot of things that are happening around voice that are exciting. We just mentioned voice recognition, but not everything is going to be voice. Certainly not for the foreseeable future, and so that doesn’t work. Also, as the ultimate platform, we also want some visuals. We also want to have other kinds of interactions. There are limitations to voice assistants, for example. Voice assistants were not quite the next platform that people said they were going to be. I would say they’re a channel, but they’re definitely not a platform. That’s how, at least I see them.Bertrand SchmittYes, a channel versus a platform. I would agree with you. I must say I start to feel that we could be close to the future we have seen in Her. This movie, Her, I guess you saw it as well, where these guy keep talking to his personal assistants, and it’s becoming his friend, maybe even his love. I start to feel we are getting close enough with AI that this becomes a possibility. But again, it’s not your only way to interact. You want to type, you want to see stuff. There are many situations where you don’t want to be seen talking with someone. It’s more of a channel versus a platform. Yes, Alexa, it’s quite amazing how it went to the roof and crashed and burned. It moved up very quickly. Amazon invested billions, hired thousands of people, which was the right move. I mean, you have something that seems to work well enough and could be game changer, why not? But it was quite impressive as a crash and burn. It’s pretty rare to move that fast up and down.Nuno Goncalves PedroI agree. A lot of money is put into this stuff. I mean, Google went after it as well. I think Google probably executed better. Their tools and their hub tools, etc, were better in their devices. But to be honest, it was the beginning of something, it wasn’t really there. It’s shocking because a lot of people have Alexa at home, and Google Hubs at home, and whatever at home. But it’s really not that powerful. I have a bunch of Google stuff at home, and I still use it for very basic information. It’s not really doing much for me. It’s not like magically now with AI, it’s going to be much better. It’s not. It’s a legacy device now. Maybe in the future, we’ll have some stuff that will be cool, but definitely not the voice assistant manifestation that we saw in the past. I know the next is exciting to you, so I’ll let you go for it, Bertrand.Bertrand SchmittNetbooks. If you remember Netbooks, this was a horribly underpowered PC device. I kept buying one after the other, hoping that the next one would be fast enough. Trying to be a small, lightweight portable PC, they were called netbooks. Usually, they also had a small screen, like 10, 12-inch, 9-inch, and each time it was horrible. Very poor battery life, 2-3 hours, super, super, super slow. They were equipped typically with a full Windows OS, and they were killed overnight by the iPad. After 2 years of the iPad, no more netbooks. Oh, yes, and they had this… Typically, they would be equipped with… What was this name of the CPU? It was an Intel Atom CPU, I believe, or Celeron. Again, the root cause why, it was so slow. It was horribly slow.Nuno Goncalves PedroSo netbooks didn’t work. We didn’t want to go back to that. The iPad won and all [inaudible 00:34:05].Bertrand SchmittI think it has been proven at this stage. There are some small mini PCs these days. You have, for instance, the ROG Ally for gaming. There has been some revival with some Chinese manufacturers making some small PCs. I have to admit, I bought some, so I kept trying. It’s much more powerful, no question. Better battery life also. But we go back to the fact that if you have a very limited screen size, 7, 8, 10 inch, it’s just tough to put a full desktop operating system to good use. You need something more simplified, more touch friendly for it to be really practical. Yes, you can run the full desktop Excel on it, but will you do it on an 8-inch screen? Probably not.Nuno Goncalves PedroNetbooks, and maybe we’ll end with Google Glass. I mean, obviously, we’re going to talk about AR and VR in just a bit. I think it’s a good segue to our next section, and we’re not necessarily saying AR, VR is dead on arrival. We actually think they’re going to be out there for us in the future. But Google Glass, in the way that a lot of the first wave wearables were developed, was cool, but not enough. I think even the recent ones, the Meta Ray-Bans. I see a lot of friends of mine now, you’re wearing Meta Ray-Bans, and they’re like, “Oh, this is so cool”. It’s like, “How is that different from the Google Glass, but now a little bit nicer?” It still feels to me that’s the wrong way to approach it. Either we go with a more comprehensive solution for glasses or a solution for glasses that’s a little bit more easily integrated into existing frames, etc, for those of us, like the two of us, who have actual eyeglasses, or I don’t see it quite happening this way. I think just as a formality in how it was deployed, it seems to me it’s been the wrong angle a couple of times, even, to be honest, beyond the first wave of wearables. It’s been a little bit the wrong way to approach this, the wrong paradigm.Bertrand SchmittIf you remember the Google Glass, initially, they were launched in… Again, overhyped. You couldn’t even buy them, but still, it was overhyped. You could see a marketing department going crazy when they were showcasing models wearing Google Glass, that sort of stuff, fashion shows. That was insane. How is it connected to the value proposition of the Google Glass? Absolutely not. But you remember what killed the Google Glass?Nuno Goncalves PedroThis is the Robert Scoble in the shower thing. The whole lack of privacy thing.Bertrand SchmittYou tried to have this vision of the Google Glass that models are wearing and stuff in fashion shows. You have this guy, Robert Scoble, taking his picture with his Google Glass in the show, half-naked. Oh, wow, that quickly dropped. In the interest into Google Glass.Nuno Goncalves PedroRobert’s a good guy for the most part, so we’ll let him get away with it. But yes, it was not a good moment for the use of Google Glass. But to your point, it was overhyped. I don’t even recall that I had to do so many things to actually get access to one. I still have it. Then in the end, it was just totally underwhelming. I do think the meta Ray-Ban solutions, etc, etc, now they’re doing it with other brands as well, are more elegant because it’s around voice activation and stuff like that. But still, it’s not this. The soon to be Resurrected… I think these kinds of solutions are dead on arrival, which may be a good segue to the resurrection pile, so to speak, that will happen, just not like that pile that we have to share today.Bertrand SchmittYes. That’s the question. Are we in resurrection mode with AR glasses? The Ray-Ban, Oakley glasses, are the way to go? There are also some other brands like XREAL, for instance, that are a different approach. It’s more fun to watch movies that I personally like a lot and use a lot. I know quite a few fans for this. There is a market for either the XREAL for movies, meta, or Ray-Ban, for light information on top of your glasses. There are niches. I don’t know if it’s full resurrection mode yet, but I can see again, with AI, that there is the ability to do more and more. Will it be connected to your phone, will be independent from a phone? That’s also stuff to see. I guess at this stage, connection to a phone has some value. It’s making a comeback.Nuno Goncalves PedroI think it’s suffering from being overhyped. It makes sense that the category comes back. The use of glasses, a lot of people actually have eyeglasses. The use of different mechanisms that really expand your view. We’ve seen that with the advent of foldables in mobile phones. People want bigger screens. They want to get as close as they can to the tablet experience without necessarily having to go to laptops, etc. Definitely, I think the use cases make sense. It’s just how do you deploy it, and who’s going to deploy it best? I don’t think we’ve seen anyone that’s been particularly enlightened about doing it. All the great developments with Android XR from Google, Samsung doing a bunch of things in terms of deployment out there as well at the same time. I mean, are these guys going to redefine this category and create the first ever wearable, at least AR great experience or VR category of experience, or are we going to have much of the same? In the same way, it took several years for the smartphone category to be recategorized as a smartphone category under the iPhone. That was the category-defining moment. It was the vision of a bunch of people, obviously led by Steve, but a bunch of people that went to market and said, This is how we view the market to be, and they just nailed it. We haven’t seen the guys who’ve nailed it, I think, is the issue thus far, either on the VR side or the AR side. We just haven’t seen it.Bertrand SchmittDefinitely, we have not seen that. There are, of course, rumors that Apple is ending their Vision Pro program, and at the same time, is full-on on AR glasses, an alternative to the Meta Ray-Ban. We will see. I start to think I have trouble to see Apple pull this off because it starts to feel that, yes, they are great at making more efficient supply chain these days, but I feel after 10 years plus of Tim Cook leading the business, that’s all there is to Apple these days: thinner phones, pink colors for your latest device.Nuno Goncalves PedroVariations.Bertrand SchmittMore efficient chips, for sure. They have great chips. But beyond that, they canceled their car program, the Vision Pro was not successful in the marketplace. They have trouble to find the next story and to execute on the next story, quite frankly. You could argue that their most successful recent launch has been the AirPods.Nuno Goncalves PedroI think that’s absolutely spot on. We’ve discussed it in previous episodes how much… It’s taken much longer than I thought it would. I always said after Steve’s passing, that it would take maybe 5 to 10 years for the beginning of the demise of Apple, and it is taking longer. There was definitely some gravity created. Steve passed away in 2011, right? They’ve been hanging on to their time, so it’s now 15 years. It seems that only now Apple is really suffering in terms of product lines. Probably they started 1 or 2 years ago. They have a new CEO coming in September, so we’ll see if John will do a better job, if he’s really a product guy, and that’s how he’s going to go for it. He’s going to go for a few products really nicely done that can have great experiences, which is Steve’s hallmark, instead of what you said was the milking of the cow, so to speak, under Tim Cook. There’s nothing wrong with it created in a hugely valuable company with a huge amount of still innovations around the edges, but it’s like now they need real product innovation, a new category definition, play, and is John going to be the guy for that or not?Bertrand SchmittYes. Positively, Tim increased market cap of Apple. He didn’t destroy the business. We are not trying to tell that Tim Cook was a failure, but definitely it was not Steve Jobs. It was more a caretaker, optimizer type of CEO. But to go to the next level, you need another type of CEO. Quite frankly, it’s hard to find when it’s not a founder CEO.Nuno Goncalves PedroYeah, I think it will be difficult to find, but we’ll give John a chance once his time comes in September 2026, as one would. Moving to another topic that we’ve discussed in the past, self-driving. It’s going to happen. We all are waiting for it to happen. Self-driving cars, self-driving vehicles that we don’t need to drive in this mess of traffic, in particular spending a lot of my time in Southern California where traffic is incessant. The driving is… How can I put it in a nice way? Awful. People don’t seem to know what they’re doing. I think we all want to have self-driving cars. It’s taking longer than we thought it would, but I do think it’s going to happen. I wouldn’t put a mark on the sand on how long to get this world of self-driving cars. It’s going to coexist with non-self-driving cars for sure for a period of time. But I, for one, know deeply that it will happen, and I look forward to it. I love driving, but not in horrible traffic with horrible drivers.Bertrand SchmittWe are for sure very close. I mean, now, Tesla self-driving is extremely good. I have taken Waymo many times with great experience. It’s not going too fast, it’s not going on the highway, so there are some limits. But I would say really impressive all in all. I think we are pretty close. I don’t know if you know, but Waymo is working on expanding to many, many more cities, actually. I think we might be at a tipping point there. Quite frankly, I expect that teenagers in 10 years from now are not going to bother to learn driving. I mean, we’ll see, but I think many won’t.Nuno Goncalves PedroI mean, Waymo is now doing also stuff on freeways, certainly in the Bay Area. I had a friend of mine who took one recently, and he was scared. He was scared shitless—I think that would be the right way to put it—because the car wasn’t going that fast, people are aggressive on the freeway around your car. But to your point, I’ve used it in city. In the city, it’s great, and it’s aggressive enough. That’s one of the things I was a bit afraid about Waymo, that it wasn’t going to be aggressive enough in city driving, it is pretty aggressive. Yeah, maybe we’re closer than we think. Maybe it’s a couple of years rather than a decade, which is normally where we put the stake on the ground. But it’s definitely going to happen. I think there was an overhype too soon. There were great movements around level 3 and level 4 autonomy that in some ways were misconstrued early on as full autonomy. But now we will likely get what we ask for. Then at some point someone’s saying, “Hey, but why don’t we just have the flying objects instead?” We’ll get back to that. The flying car stuff, the eVTOLs and all that stuff, we’ll see.Bertrand Schmitt10 years ago, I remember the overhyping was very, very strong with self-driving. I nearly believed the bullshit. It was so strong in 2015, 2016 that nearly everyone thought it’s here in the next 12 months, basically. I think that was a lesson for quite a lot of people. Don’t trust the Silicon Valley bullshit machine, hype machine. It can go way too strong, way too fast. You absolutely need to spend time to understand realistically where we truly are. You cannot just buy the premise.Nuno Goncalves PedroMoving maybe to robotics and humanoids. Again, it’s going to happen both for consumer and for industrial. The humanoid form, I think, at some point will be important. Just not yet. I think we’re behind now the big buzz sentence is embodied AI, where you have physical AI manifestations. AI manifested through robots and other kinds of devices. It’s going to start happening in certain beachheads. But, hey, we’ve had this offer for a long time, and I know you still have your frustrations, Bertrand, with the Sony AIBO. I won’t traumatize you more than that, but definitely it will happen. We will have humanoids at some point. We’ll have different specialty devices that will help us in activities that we do both as consumers and also in the B2B and enterprise space, even in the industrial space. The writing’s on the wall that definitely is going to happen.Bertrand SchmittYes. I think the question, as always, is how do you get there? I think the intermediate steps of your optimized robot, a physically optimized robot, like a Roomba to clean your home or some other robots to mow your grass, a good example, I think initially you have to start a small, practical, not too technology advanced and progress your way. Truly humanoid robots are very disruptive because technically, if they work, they can do everything a human could do. But practically, I don’t think it’s that true because a lot of constraints. You have to have enough weight, you have to have enough force, you have to have enough vision, you have to have enough AI to just understand commands and move around. But, again, with all the progress in AI, the progress in electric motors, I am optimistic that there is a chance for the humanoid robot, but it’s not 3 years. It’s probably not even 5. It’s probably more like 10. Let’s not forget that a lot of demos with humanoid robots today are fake. It’s a remote operator, remotely controlling a robot. It’s not a robot working by himself in many, many, many situations. That, I think, is another thing hurting the reputation of some of these companies because these fake demos, they look great, but once you dig a bit, you realize it was a fake demo because it certainly didn’t come with a warning that it’s remotely operated.Nuno Goncalves PedroMoving maybe to the next one that it will happen, but not exactly like that. Quantum computing, I think for the most, it’s been in many cases a solution looking for problems. It’s beautiful, but it’s like, “What’s the problems we’re trying to solve?” I think we’re going to start having beachheads into problem solution and apps. I’m sure a lot of people out there would say, “Well, there’s already killer apps for this, a lot of the scientific modulation, cryptography, breaking, all that stuff.” But I’m like, “Yeah, cool.” It still feels very much like a bunch of pieces and hardware in effect that is trying to solve a problem that needs to be very much defined into several problems, several areas of problem solution going forward. Will it happen? For sure. I’ve been hearing about quantum computing since I was in college, since I was 17 when I got into college. I’m sure it will happen. It will have manifestations. There’s a lot of stuff probably already residing on some of these instances. But a full mainstream view of what quantum computing can do for us is still quite ways out.Bertrand SchmittYes, I mean, there has been some reports that some key steps in the technology starts to be working and that potentially the technology could start to deliver results in the coming 2-3 years. What I mean by results, results that will dramatically change how you need to encrypt because a lot about quantum computing is actually trying to decrypt the current technologies that are used to protect your information online. This one is big. If we manage to have a limited use of quantum computing things that work in a few years, that will have a dramatic impact on how we encrypt data. That’s the one piece I’m looking for: do we really manage to solve encryption with computing? If yes, then we need to make a lot of changes how we encrypt things.Nuno Goncalves PedroFusion energy, the gift that keeps on giving, but this somehow doesn’t fully happen. I know you’re a big fan.Bertrand SchmittI would say, practically, I’m a big fan of nuclear fusion energy because in a way, it’s working. It’s solved in terms of safety. Latest Gen5 reactors are ultra-safe. They cannot go out of control anymore. China has a working reactor. In some ways, part of me would say, “Why bother with fusion when we have fission that is working extremely well, and we know how to make?” If we are efficient about the process, we could make for really cheap. Having a better source of energy today will already be great for the world. I would like to see scale with fission. It’s great to research fusion. Fusion is near a limitless form of energy. This is exciting. I think what’s interesting with fusion these days, it’s not just the big governments working on spending billions before seeing any potential returns, but there is a lot of startups that are working on it. The bar went lower in terms of researching fusion. That part gets me excited. But again, I think we should go fission first and parallel with some fission investment, fusion research, and hopefully, fusion comes at some point, but we should not wait for fusion would be my big take.Nuno Goncalves PedroGood point. Last but not the least, we’ve dedicated episodes on this, so maybe today we’ll just do the little teaser. If you guys haven’t heard our episodes on AI and the bubble and all those things. The last big one that’s just not like that, it will happen is AI itself, and in particular, AGI, so generalized AI that will be just like a human. Obviously, it’s happening. We’ve discussed in previous episodes, there’s a lot of breakthroughs in terms of methodological approach beyond the GPT curse of actual hallucinations that doesn’t seem to be solvable. There’s a lot of things happening around reinforcement learning, evolutionary computation, and other methodological approaches to AI that we think will create tremendous breakthroughs. There’s definitely a lot of funding going into it. We quantified it recently. I think 63, the number probably has changed in the last couple of weeks, but 63 new AI labs that have raised significant rounds upfront, just getting into the market, some of them as high as hundreds of millions or even over a billion dollars for the first round of funding. Obviously, there’s a lot of dramatic things happening in that space. There’s a lot of capital going to that space. It’s going to happen. It’s going to take much longer than, I think, we think it’s going to take. I just saw, I think, Marc Andreessen recently saying, AGI is already upon us. Maybe it is. Maybe he knows something we don’t know. But I suspect we’re still ways to go in a lot of the developments on AI. For now, it will continue its complications and its limitations. But definitely it will untap a lot of great productivity enhancements, technological enhancements, even in the short term that at least I’m very excited about. Then the AGI story, I think, will be a story that will be told later.Bertrand SchmittI might actually disagree on this one. I actually believe, like Marc Andreessen, that we are at AGI. We reached AGI a few months ago with the latest ChatGPT 5.5 with Claude Anthropic, Opus 4.7, 4.6 even. For me, in some specific space, let’s say coding, for instance, I truly believe we have reached AGI. It is totally replacing people for development, testing, writing, specifications, doing design. Yes, there are some use cases where it’s not working as well. But for at least the coding side, I think AGI is truly there. Is it better than the best human experts at every piece of the puzzle? No. I think if you go to some very specialized development stuff like a CUDA development, for instance, or some kernel development, it might not be at the level of the top human experts. But as we can hear about stories around security to the new versions that are unreleased yet of Anthropic and others seem to be at the level of the best human experts at cybersecurity. I think we are actually there. I think that’s why there is an acceleration the past six months in terms of investments in data centers. There was a big question in 2023, 2024, 2025, “Are we investing too much? Is it a bubble?” And so on. That was true because revenues were increasing, but not that fast. The increase in the growth in revenues for Anthropic is insane. No one has ever seen that in the whole history of technology, what happened to them the past six months. Growing so fast at such a scale, no one has seen. I think that’s truly because they have stumbled upon AGI for coding. Coding is such a huge, large market that even if we are just solving coding, even if we never solve more than that, I think it’s already one of the biggest markets in the world, full stop.Nuno Goncalves PedroBut that, for me, I think maybe it’s a definitional thing. That, for me, is still narrow AI. AGI, as defined, is a type of AI that can match or surpass human capabilities across virtually all cognitive and intellectual tasks. Coding is just one of them. I think there’s a lot of narrow AI right there, to your point, that can replace humans maybe today. Coding may be a great example of that. But I don’t think we are at the AGI. I haven’t seen any agents out there that can replace fully human beings, where I would not understand that they’re actually AI. Anyway, again, maybe you guys have seen stuff that I haven’t seen. I just feel there’s a lot of overhype on what the AGI actually is. But the ability to surpass us as human beings, I haven’t seen it yet across the board, not on a specific domain.Bertrand SchmittYes, I think my point is that I have seen it on a few domains. If you look at mathematics, for instance, and there are more and more examples of people who are using AI to solve math problems that only the very top people in the world were able to solve that are now being solved by AI. I start to feel that we are getting a few examples in different fields where AI is matching the absolute best experts in the world. I would just go back in terms of market size. Already what we got today, and today is not the limit, but what we got today, and especially AI combined with all these agents, harness agents, that’s also that specific combo that makes a difference. This is, for me at this stage, huge market. Does it solve everything? Does it replace a human for everything? No, you still need the human in the loop. You don’t let your AI go wild for weeks and just check once in a while. But you could argue very few humans are able to do that, quite frankly, to run by themselves for weeks without control.Nuno Goncalves PedroI feel there’s still a great deal of confusion because there’s dramatic impact on narrow AI domains where things are being done that weren’t done before, where there’s these great mathematical proofing, coding stuff is being done very easily, etc, etc. But still that, for me, is not the definition of AGI. AGI is a human being. It’s like someone who can really be a human being. Ideally, become top end of what a human being will look intellectually across domains. I don’t think that’s where we are. Again, maybe definitional, maybe that’s what Marc means, but I mean-Bertrand SchmittYeah, the question is, what does it mean? I would argue it’s beating 80% of humanity today pretty easily. Most of humanity doesn’t know how to code. It will be unable to do coding at the level AI is doing. It will be unable to do math at the level AI is doing. Use ChatGPT to check for medical issues and stuff. It’s not perfect for sure, but, again, it still beats most humans. I don’t know. I feel that we are reaching a level where it’s truly beating most of humans, many experts in many fields. I feel the definition of, “Hey, it has reached the level of an average human being.” I would say it passed that one. Is it the same as a human being? No. But reaching the level of your average human being, I think we are there in a lot of fields.Nuno Goncalves PedroConclusion Well, in conclusion, in episode 78 of Tech Deciphered, we went into two piles: the pile of dead-on-arrival products, technologies, businesses, and the pile of “it will happen, but not like that” or “not yet” pile of technologies, business out there as well. We went into a bunch of topics today that were of extreme importance back in the past where we thought the world was going to change, anywhere from self-driving to fusion in the nuclear space. We also went into some dramatic, dramatic mistakes like Juicero and other deployments like Segway that seem to be really very much dead on arrival. With that, I would ask you if you’re excited, and you want to share with us some of your agreements or disagreements on today’s episode, as well as your own dead-on-arrival versus merely-early examples, feel free to do so on LinkedIn, X, or via email. Thank you, Bertrand.Bertrand SchmittThank you, Nuno.

Ils ont inventé l'appareil photo numérique en 1975.Ils ont déposé le brevet.Ils ont enterré l'invention.Et 37 ans plus tard, ils ont déposé le bilan.L'histoire de Kodak, c'est le meilleur cas d'école sur comment tenir une bombe entre les mains et décider de ne surtout pas la lancer.Un moment d'égarement, la chronique animée par Laurent Guérin, qui traite avec humour des échecs les plus retentissants de la tech.***** À PROPOS DE TRENCH TECH *****LE talkshow « Esprits Critiques pour Tech Ethique »Écoutez-nous sur toutes les plateformes de podcast

Do you remember Enron? Or more recently, Elizabeth Holmes and Theranos? Really smart people deceived other really smart people. Today, Pastor JD warns you: the end times are coming, and whether you’re smart or not, you can be deceived. What will prevent you from deception? God’s word will provide the anchor.

Do you remember Enron? Or more recently, Elizabeth Holmes and Theranos? Really smart people deceived other really smart people. Today, Pastor JD warns you: the end times are coming, and whether you’re smart or not, you can be deceived. What will prevent you from deception? God’s word will provide the anchor.

What if the most powerful tool in a company isn't the CEO, the strategy deck, or the financial model, but a handful of metrics on a dashboard?In this episode of Corporate Finance Explained, we explore the hidden world of executive dashboards, KPIs, and performance measurement systems that shape decision-making inside the world's largest organizations. From Amazon's famous driver trees to Airbnb's rapid dashboard transformation during the pandemic, we uncover how finance teams use data to focus attention, drive accountability, and guide strategy. We also examine what happens when metrics go wrong. Through the cautionary stories of Theranos and Wells Fargo, we show how poorly designed dashboards, vanity metrics, and misaligned incentives can create blind spots, encourage harmful behavior, and ultimately destroy value. 

Week 3 of the WNBA has come and gone and we're chatting about it all! The fish and chippies with players and coaches! Who won our Fantasy League face-off! If the Phoenix Mercury need Theranos!#newyorkliberty #LasVegasAces #SeattleStorm #IndianaFever #ConnecticutSun #PhoenixMercury #DallasWings #ChicagoSky #MinnesotaLynx #WashingtonMystics #LosAngelesSparks #AtlantaDream #TorontoTempo #GoldenStateValkyries #UConnHuskies #Paigebueckers #azzifudd #caitlinclark

Dr. John Schneider rode into town like a character out of a Western: an outsider on a Harley-Davidson, in trademark cowboy boots. He promised relief to patients suffering in Wyoming and Montana. He seemed like the hero they needed. But when surgeries go wrong and a strange letter exposes a bitter feud, medical professionals and government officials search for the truth about this cowboy doctor. They discover claims of broken bodies, bullying, fraud, and lawsuits.From Audible, the fifth season of the hit series Dr. Death returns with The Cowboy: the story of a surgeon who took advantage of a broken system and the fight to bring him to justice. Listen to Dr. Death: The Cowboy wherever you get your podcasts. Audible subscribers can binge all episodes of Dr. Death: The Cowboy ad-free right now. Start your Audible subscription in the Audible App or on Apple Podcasts.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

JORDAN IS TOURING AMERICA AND CANADA, BUY TICKETS NOW: https://linktr.ee/friendlyjordieslive WATCH SMUTROT (OUR NEW BAD FAN-FIC SHOW): https://youtu.be/xkYT-mQVxZg Get a 7-day free trial to ad-free, early access to Red Thread: https://www.official.men Welcome to The Red Thread, a podcast series where two friends (Jordan and Jackson) investigate the peculiar space just beyond reality. Cryptids, conspiracies, cults, and more are on the investigation board and nothing is off limits. What will they discover? There's only one way to find out... --- Check out FriendlyJordies: https://www.youtube.com/@friendlyjordies Check out Jordan Shanks: https://www.youtube.com/@jordanshanksselfhelp Check out Jordan on tour in Australia: https://www.friendlyjordies.com/ Support the show, leave a rating, and remember to subscribe: Listen on Audio ➡️ https://linktr.ee/redthreadshow Listen to other Our Other Shows ➡️ https://linktr.ee/theofficialnetwork Support us on Patreon ➡️ https://www.patreon.com/theofficialpodcast This is Episode #116, where we discuss the story of Theranos. Originally recorded 26/05/26. Show Notes: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1dpICn17eRsGGTKm2es2RLuAtlJVN4BsXEu-RJ1CackM/edit?usp=sharing Hosts: Jackson - https://www.twitter.com/zealotonpc Jordan - https://www.twitter.com/friendlyjordies Writer/Producer: Jackson Clarke Music/Editing by: https://linktr.ee/zayaLT Thumbnail: https://bento.me/elvan Designer: http://www.jr-design-co.com/ Produced under The Official Podcast Network Contact (business only): jackson@theofficialnetwork.net Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Is what's happening on OnlyFans real? Or is it only a fantasy?In this provocative investigation into OnlyFans—the adult platform where subscribers around the world spent more than $7 billion in 2024—journalist Leon Neyfakh teams up with comedian and OnlyFans creator Gracie Canaan for a one-of-a-kind exploration into the current state of human connection. Throughout, they discover that the site originally built for spicy adult content has quietly and surprisingly become something more complicated— an emotional marketplace where desire, performance, care, fantasy, and vulnerability seemingly blur together.As Neyfakh and Canaan navigate timely questions about autonomy, performance, and profit, a question emerges: is connection mediated by a screen still authentic? To find the answer, they meet creators building lucrative businesses, subscribers who believe they've found something real, professional “chatters” who are paid to simulate affection, and pioneers who have helped engineer intimacy at scale.Captivating and tender, OnlyFantasy is ultimately about the cost of loneliness, the seductive power of desire, and how the rules of human intimacy are being rewritten online.Listen to OnlyFantasy wherever you get your podcasts. Or binge all episodes of OnlyFantasy ad-free right now on Audible. Start your Audible subscription in the Audible App or on Apple Podcasts.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Join host Adam Larson as he welcomes expert guests Dana Hermanson, Daniel Haggerty, and Douglas Boyle—the authors of the 2026 Curt Verschoor Ethics Feature of the Year—for an honest, eye-opening discussion on the shadow side of professional ethics. After their award-winning article on building virtue, the trio flips the script—this time tackling the capital vices of pride, envy, and greed, and exploring why good people sometimes make bad choices. Hear real-world examples, from Enron to Theranos, and pick up practical strategies for recognizing and overcoming these vices in yourself and your organization. Daniel shares a philosopher's perspective on the roots of bad behavior, Douglas draws on his executive experience to talk about healthy versus harmful pride, and Dana connects classic wisdom to familiar fraud prevention tools. Whether you're a finance leader, student, or just curious about why fraud still happens, this is a conversation packed with insight, stories, and advice you can use right away—including a behind-the-scenes look at their award-winning article.

What do you do when you discover a celebrated CEO named Elizabeth Holmes is marketing a medical device that is not only defective, but actually providing wildly inaccurate lab results to tens of thousands of people?  Yet that CEO's billion-dollar company, Theranos, is protected by over-the-top security measures, has a board filled with former government leaders, and is defended by one of the most powerful and aggressive lawyers in the country?  This is the situation that faced former Theranos employees Erika Cheung and Tyler Shultz, as well as “Wall Street Journal” reporter John Carreyou, in 2015.  In the second episode of this fascinating 2-part series, we discuss the circumstances– and the brave people– that led to the fall of Elizabeth Holmes, her partner Sunny Balwani, and the start-up company Theranos.  If your blood was boiling while you listened to Part 1, you won't want to miss the story's satisfying conclusion.  How to support Scandal Water: Rate, review, and subscribe! Follow the show on your favorite app or Scandal Water Podcast YouTube channel.  Send your shoutouts to scandalwaterpodcast@gmail.com. Become a member on patreon.com/ScandalWaterPodcast or buymeacoffee.com/scandalwaterpod – which will also grant you access to fabulous bonus content! #ElizabethHolmes #Theranos #SunnyBalwani #ErikaCheung #TylerShultz #JohnCarreyou #GirlBoss #Medical #Fraud #MedicalMayhem #May #ScandalWaterPodcast #Podcast  

What if your body could warn you before a relapse happens? In this fascinating episode, Dr. Vera Tarman sits down with Bob Messerschmidt — biomedical engineer, inventor, and one of the architects behind the original Apple Watch's health-sensing technology — to explore a surprisingly simple but powerful biomarker: the erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR). Bob is the founder of Core Health and has developed an FDA-registered at-home device that tracks chronic low-grade inflammation over time. For those of us in the food addiction and recovery world, this conversation opens a compelling new door: could inflammation tracking be the missing feedback loop for people working to stay abstinent from ultra-processed foods?

In 2014, Elizabeth Holmes was declared the youngest self-made female billionaire in the world by Forbes. Her start-up, Theranos, employed more than 700 people and was valued at over $9 billion.  By 2018, Theranos was worth nothing.  In part 1 of this fascinating 2-part series, we focus on the woman behind Theranos, Elizabeth Holmes, and her rise to success.   How did a 19-year-old dropout from Stanford start a company in Silicon Valley? What was the mission behind Theranos and the purpose of its notorious Edisons? How did Elizabeth Holmes use her role model, Steve Jobs, to craft her own persona? When and how did Sunny Balwani become COO of Theranos? And what were the key events that led to the company's success? The episode will make your blood run cold…   How to support Scandal Water: Rate, review, and subscribe! Follow the show on your favorite app or Scandal Water Podcast YouTube channel.  Send your shoutouts to scandalwaterpodcast@gmail.com. Become a member on patreon.com/ScandalWaterPodcast or buymeacoffee.com/scandalwaterpod – which will also grant you access to fabulous bonus content! #ElizabethHolmes #Theranos #SunnyBalwani #ErikaCheung #TylerShultz #JohnCarreyou #GirlBoss #Medical #Fraud #MedicalMayhem #May #ScandalWaterPodcast #Podcast 

In this episode, Kul explores why leadership teams can gradually become echo chambers - where ideas are reinforced rather than challenged. He unpacks how success, hierarchy, and the “politeness trap” can suppress dissent and fuel confirmation bias. Drawing on real-world examples like Kodak and Theranos, Kul highlights the risks of unchecked alignment and the importance of psychological safety. Kul Mahay has over 3 decades experience in the leadership space.  He works with organisations and leaders to develop powerful cultures of high value, and performance which is built all around their people. _____________________________ ABOUT THE PODCAST SERIES During these shows, you‘ll hear Kul chatting with fellow leaders from around the world, who are recognised as being at the top of their game.  Together they‘ll explore what emotional intelligence in practice actually looks like, and the benefits it could bring to your teams. It‘s a movement to transform the way we see leadership, and to create powerful cultures where people feel seen, heard, valued and appreciated. Please join the movement and FOLLOW/SUBSCRIBE to this Podcast. FOLLOW ► https://www.linkedin.com/in/kulmahay-leadership/

Bitcoin's Satoshi drama heats up again as a major journalistic “reveal” drops, just as the crypto industry gets rocked by a quantum computing breakthrough that pulls up security timelines—and AI-powered exploits are suddenly real. We break down Satoshi theories, Blockstream PR whispers, the new quantum risk landscape, Ethereum vs. Bitcoin migration pain, and why your favorite protocols might not be ready for North Korea or superintelligent bug finders. Welcome to The Chopping Block — where crypto insiders Haseeb Qureshi, Tom Schmidt, Tarun Chitra, and Robert Leshner chop it up about the latest in crypto. This week we're joined by Justin Drake, Ethereum Foundation researcher and the internet's favorite quantum attack alarm bell ringer. Things get spicy immediately: the eternal guessing game “Who is Satoshi?” gets a new round of attention as John Carreyrou (yeah, Theranos guy) drops a supposed expose pointing his finger at none other than Blockstream's Adam Back.  The crew debates whether this Satoshi story is tired PR, inside baseball, or a genuine existential turning point for Bitcoin culture. Then things escalate: Justin walks us through Google and Atomic's quantum computing breakthrough—a real, validated step forward that potentially pulls the “Q-day” clock up to as soon as 2029. The implications? Bitcoin and Ethereum's security models are suddenly under the gun, and community denial is in full effect. Who's better poised to survive a quantum apocalypse… and is coin burning on the menu for Satoshi's stash? Later, we break down the Drift hack—North Korea's latest state-level heist, featuring IRL social engineering that sounds like Mr. Robot meets Oceans Eleven. Finally, it's an AI arms race: Anthropic's Mythos model is reportedly the most dangerous security researcher ever coded, and it's already quietly hardening corporate fortresses.  Panic? Prepare? Both? One thing's for sure—there are no do-overs on the blockchain, so let's get into it. Listen to the episode on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Pods, Fountain, Podcast Addict, Pocket Casts, Amazon Music, or on your favorite podcast platform. Show highlights

Souveraineté numérique, IA de confiance, cybersécurité, cloud souverain, protection des mineurs en ligne : la France multiplie les promesses.Mais avec des investissements 5 fois inférieurs aux États-Unis, des données sensibles hébergées sur des clouds américains et une IA dépendante de puces qu'on ne fabrique pas, a-t-elle vraiment les moyens de ses ambitions numériques ? Notre invitée : Anne Le Hénanff, Ministre déléguée chargée de l'Intelligence artificielle et du Numérique. - Quel est le plan concret pour réduire notre dépendance au cloud américain ?- La France a-t-elle un véritable "Plan B" si les États-Unis activent le « kill-switch » et coupent l'accès à leurs technologies ?- SecNumCloud nous protège-t-il vraiment face au droit extraterritorial américain ?- Comment fabriquer une IA compétitive sans trahir nos principes éthiques ?- Majorité numérique à 15 ans : comment vérifier l'âge sans surveiller nos enfants ? Au sommaire :- La conquête de notre souveraineté numérique- Un Moment d'Égarement : Theranos, la reine du faux diagnostic- Les moyens de nos ambitions numériques : jusqu'où l'État ose-t-il aller ?- Le debrief de Cyrille Chaudoit et Mick Levy Retrouvez Anne Le Hénanff sur https://www.linkedin.com/in/annelehenanff/ (c) Trench Tech, LE podcast des "Esprits Critiques pour une Tech Éthique"Épisode enregistré le 27/03/2026 --- Tu kiffes Trench Tech ?Participe à la diffusion de l'esprit critique pour une tech éthique !1/ Abonne-toi 2/ Laisse 5 étoiles et un avis sur Apple Podcasts, Spotify ou YouTube Et RDV sur notre site : http://www.trench-tech.fr et sur LinkedIn Notre collectif Conception et animation : Cyrille Chaudoit et Mick Levy Chroniqueurs : Laurent Guérin (Un Moment d'Égarement), Emmanuel Goffi (La Philo Tech), Fabienne Billat (Patch Tech), Gérald Holubowicz (On Refait la Tech), Louis de Diesbach (La Tech Entre les Lignes), Sandrine Charpentier (Elles font la Tech), Virginie Martins de Nobrega (Débats en Technocratie), Laura Sibony (Mémoire Vive). Site web : Thierry PirèsRéal. Vidéo : Grégoire de la CotardièreMoyens techniques : MonstudioTV, hébergé par ISEG NantesHébergé par Ausha. Visitez ausha.co/politique-de-confidentialite pour plus d'informations.

Andrew and Frank chat about AI and deep fakes in radiology, as well as robots, clear ice, Project Hail Mary, multi-disciplinary meetings, Theranos, April Fools day, photon-counting CT, Jimmy Carr, learning from mistakes, open disclosure and bad investment advice.    Our CAPTCHA April Fool ► https://radiopaedia.org/april-fools Radiology Fake X-ray research  ►  https://pubs.rsna.org/doi/10.1148/radiol.252094 XKCD CAPTCHA ► https://xkcd.com/2228/ Radiopaedia 2026 ► https://radiopaedia.org/courses/radiopaedia-2026-virtual-conference Become a supporter ► https://radiopaedia.org/supporters Get an All-Access Pass ► https://radiopaedia.org/courses/all-access-course-pass Radiopaedia Community chat ► http://radiopaedia.org/chat Ideas and Feedback ► podcast@radiopaedia.org   The Reading Room is a radiology podcast intended primarily for radiologists, radiology registrars and residents. 

This Day in Legal History: Ronald Reagan Assassination AttemptOn March 30, 1981, Ronald Reagan was shot in an assassination attempt outside the Washington Hilton Hotel in Washington, D.C. The attack was carried out by John Hinckley Jr., who fired multiple shots as the president exited an event. Reagan was seriously wounded but survived after emergency surgery, while others, including Press Secretary James Brady, were also injured. The incident immediately triggered a high-profile federal criminal case against Hinckley. During trial, Hinckley's defense team argued that he was legally insane at the time of the shooting. The jury ultimately returned a verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity in 1982. This outcome shocked the public and sparked widespread debate about the use and limits of the insanity defense in criminal law.Critics argued that the standard allowed dangerous individuals to avoid accountability, while supporters emphasized the importance of recognizing severe mental illness in legal responsibility. In response, Congress and many states moved to tighten the rules governing insanity defenses. One major reform was the passage of the Insanity Defense Reform Act of 1984, which made it harder for defendants to succeed with such claims in federal court. The law shifted the burden of proof to defendants and narrowed the definition of legal insanity. The case also influenced how courts evaluate expert psychiatric testimony. Over time, Hinckley remained confined to a psychiatric institution rather than a traditional prison. His gradual release decades later continued to raise legal and ethical questions about mental illness and public safety. This event remains a defining moment in modern criminal law because it reshaped how courts balance mental health and criminal responsibility.Bank of America has agreed to pay $72.5 million to settle a proposed class action lawsuit alleging it helped facilitate Jeffrey Epstein's sex trafficking activities. The agreement, filed for preliminary approval in New York federal court, does not include any admission of wrongdoing by the bank. The plaintiff, identified as Jane Doe, described the settlement as a meaningful recovery for survivors. The proposed class includes women and girls who were abused by Epstein or his associates, including those who received compensation tied to sexual activity. Payments to class members will vary based on factors such as the severity and duration of abuse and any cooperation with investigations.Doe alleged that Bank of America ignored warning signs and allowed suspicious financial transactions linked to Epstein's operations, including accounts opened in her name despite red flags. The bank denied facilitating any illegal conduct but stated the settlement allows it to resolve the matter and provide closure. The plaintiff's attorneys may seek up to 30% of the settlement fund in fees. The court had previously dismissed claims against another defendant, Bank of New York Mellon, and narrowed the case against Bank of America. The judge also rejected an effort by the bank to pause proceedings while related government matters were clarified.The plaintiff and her legal team weighed the risks of trial, including the possibility of a lengthy appeals process that could delay compensation for survivors. As part of the settlement process, a fund administrator will determine individual awards using specific criteria tied to each claimant's experience. The case highlights ongoing legal efforts to hold financial institutions accountable for their potential role in enabling trafficking networks.BofA Will Pay $72.5M In Deal Ending Epstein Ties Allegations - Law360Four major law firms—Jenner & Block LLP, WilmerHale, Susman Godfrey LLP, and Perkins Coie LLP—have asked the D.C. Circuit to uphold lower court rulings that invalidated executive orders issued by Donald Trump targeting them. The firms argue the orders were unconstitutional, claiming they violated the First Amendment and other protections by restricting their ability to practice law. The measures included suspending security clearances, limiting access to federal buildings, and penalizing the firms for their clients and legal work.The firms contend the orders were retaliatory, pointing to Trump's criticism of their pro bono work and connections to investigations involving him. They argue the government cannot punish lawyers for representing certain clients or expressing particular viewpoints. Each firm emphasized that the orders interfere with core legal principles, including the right to counsel, free association, and access to the courts.The U.S. Department of Justice initially sought to drop its appeal of the lower court decisions but quickly reversed course and is now defending the executive orders. The firms highlighted this reversal as evidence that the orders are legally weak. They also argue that the government has failed to meaningfully dispute claims that the orders were motivated by retaliation.The dispute is now before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, with oral arguments scheduled for May. The outcome could have significant implications for executive power and the independence of the legal profession.Firms Targeted By Trump Urge DC Circ. To Uphold EO Rulings - Law360Law firms targeted by Trump ask court to uphold rulings blocking executive orders | ReutersA federal judge reduced the prison sentence of Elizabeth Holmes by one year, lowering her term from just over 11 years after applying updated federal sentencing guidelines. Holmes had requested a two-year reduction, but the court granted only a partial decrease despite opposition from prosecutors. The judge found that although her fraud caused approximately $452 million in investor losses, prosecutors failed to show that any individual victim suffered “substantial financial hardship,” which is required under the revised guidelines.The court emphasized that financial harm must be evaluated relative to each victim's wealth, noting that large losses do not automatically qualify as substantial hardship for wealthy investors. Because the government did not provide specific evidence of such harm, Holmes qualified for a reduced sentence as a nonviolent, first-time offender. However, the judge limited the reduction to one year to maintain deterrence and reflect the seriousness of her conduct.Holmes was convicted in 2022 of defrauding investors in Theranos, the blood-testing startup she led alongside Ramesh Balwani. While her conviction included four counts of investor fraud, she was acquitted or not convicted on other charges. She began serving her sentence in 2023.Prosecutors argued against reducing her sentence, citing the scale of the losses, her limited restitution payments, and concerns about potential future misconduct. Holmes countered that investors knowingly took risks and were not financially devastated. The judge ultimately agreed that the legal standard for “substantial financial hardship” was not met.Elizabeth Holmes Gets 11-Year Prison Sentence Cut By A Year - Law360 UK This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Join us for an insightful conversation with Mary Inman, Partner at Whistleblower Partners LLP and Board Member of the nonprofit PSST.org. With over 30 years of experience, Mary shares her journey supporting whistleblowers worldwide and explains the crucial role they play in society as “canaries in the coal mine.”In this episode of The Brand Called You, hosted by Frits Bussemaker, you'll discover:The legal and cultural definitions of whistleblowers and the stigma they face.How whistleblowers are matched with government agencies, and how reward programs work.Stories from high-profile cases like Theranos and Uber.The importance of psychosocial support and building supportive whistleblower communities.Mary's personal motivation, challenges, and advice for aspiring whistleblower lawyers.

We get our SF billboard specialist and recovered startup person Wendy Liu in to talk about the newest scandal rocking Silicon Valley: a company that can only be described as Theranos for Compliance. Get more TF episodes each week by subscribing to our Patreon here!   TF Merch is still available here!   *MILO ALERT* Check out Milo's tour dates here: https://www.miloedwards.co.uk/liveshows Trashfuture are: Riley (@raaleh), Milo (@Milo_Edwards), Hussein (@HKesvani), Nate (@inthesedeserts), and November (@postoctobrist)

Une startup qui promettait de révolutionner les prises de sang : sans aiguilles, sans douleur, et presque sans sang !En quelques années, Elizabeth Holmes hypnotise investisseurs, géants de la distribution et médias avec une techno… qui ne fonctionne pas.Jusqu'au jour où les mensonges ne tiennent plus face à la réalité et où la Silicon Valley découvre qu'elle s'est fait piquer.Un moment d'égarement, la chronique animée par Laurent Guérin, qui traite avec humour des échecs les plus retentissants de la tech.***** À PROPOS DE TRENCH TECH *****LE talkshow « Esprits Critiques pour Tech Ethique »Écoutez-nous sur toutes les plateformes de podcast

Too-good-to-be-true promises often hide the biggest fraud schemes. In this episode, Mandi and Daphne explore the “pot of gold” illusion in fraud, from leprechaun folklore to the real-world deception behind the Theranos scandal. The episode also features a conversation with HCFS team member Paula about HCFSElevate, the upcoming user conference in Austin, where guest speaker and whistleblower Tyler Schultz will share the story behind exposing Theranos and why investigative professionals remain essential to uncovering fraud.

In Silicon Valley, disruption is celebrated.Break the rules.Move fast.Change the world.In the early 2000s, one startup promised to revolutionize medicine itself.

My main takeawaysMain TakeawaysThe "Stargate" Collapse: The $500 billion partnership between OpenAI, SoftBank, and Oracle is being labeled "vaporware." Reports suggest the deal is in shambles due to internal power struggles and a lack of actual liquidity, with SoftBank allegedly scrambling for 90% debt financing.Market Volatility vs. Reality: There is a disconnect between market reactions and product performance. While Anthropic's claim that Claude can streamline COBOL code caused IBM's stock to drop 10%, critics argue the public is still in a "demo phase" of awe and hasn't realized the tech often fails to work as advertised.Reliability Concerns: High-profile failures are surfacing, such as Claude reportedly deleting a Meta researcher's entire Gmail history. This raises alarms as these same models are being positioned to manage critical infrastructure like banking and the IRS.Corporate Espionage: Anthropic has reported "industrial-scale distillation attacks" from Chinese labs (DeepSeek, Moonshot AI, MiniMax), claiming they used over 24,000 fraudulent accounts to "siphon" Claude's capabilities to train their own models.The "Theranos" Comparison: Critics are drawing parallels between current AI labs and failed startups like Theranos, arguing that the goal of reaching AGI via Large Language Models may be technically impossible, creating a "feedback loop delusion" to sustain venture capital investment.Strategic Shifts: OpenAI is pivoting toward traditional consulting giants (McKinsey, Accenture) to integrate its tech, while the community continues to debate the technical distinctions between generative AI and autonomous agents.@XFreeze@MrEwanMorrison@sterlingcrispin@dwlz

Formal education is becoming irrelevant. The UK is a great place to build a business. These aren't platitudes—they're battle-tested beliefs from someone who spent 20 years in the military, led the UK's COVID testing programme, and is now co-founding Electric Twin with Ben Warner (the PM's former chief data advisor) to build synthetic audiences that let businesses test decisions in seconds rather than weeks.In this episode, Alex Cooper breaks down why the most memorable periods of your life will be the ones where you had zero balance, why you should hire polymaths with agility and hunger rather than certificates in AI, and how his company uses generative AI to simulate human decision-making with startling accuracy. He also shares lessons from scaling from 0 to 17 people, why founder-led sales matters even when you've never done it before, and why he'd rather die at 93 still working every day than retire to garden.What you'll learn:

Host Victor opens by previewing the podcast's current coverage: HBO's Industry (focus of this episode), The Pitt on HBO Max, Apple TV+'s Drops of God, and a Christopher Nolan rewatch ahead of The Odyssey (with upcoming discussion of Insomnia). He also mentions upcoming premieres including Paradise, which remains the podcast's most popular show. mailto:needssomeintroduction@gmail.com Victor calls Industry's episode “Dear Henry” an elite, event-packed installment that feels like a season finale while resolving little. He follows up on last week's revelation that Tender is effectively a Ponzi scheme by outlining real-world analogs: the FTX collapse (FTX/Alameda circular self-inflation via the FTT token), Germany's Wirecard fraud (manufactured transactions, overpaying for acquisitions, auditors' failures, and political/regulatory protection including actions against Financial Times reporting), and Theranos as a charisma-driven deception. He also notes money-laundering examples involving Ghana and argues the show's broader theme is the emptiness of a culture fixated on wealth, valuation, and belief-driven “truth,” raising questions about how much corporate value is overstated and whether society celebrates con men. Joined by Darren, they first discuss the Game of Thrones prequel A Knight of the Seven Kingdoms (episodes 1–5), praising its intimacy, sets, humor, acting, and a brutal recent battle episode, and noting its short season and fast production cadence. They then break down “Dear Henry”: Harper warns Yasmin that she and Henry were duped by Whitney, and while Yasmin reacts defensively, the warning sinks in. Whitney's unsettling dynamic with Henry escalates (including a bathroom/shower moment and later clubbing), while Henry grows suspicious about Tender's audit and Whitney's manipulation. Sweetpea's public takedown presentation at an Alpha conference drives Tender's stock down sharply and impresses Eric, who watches with pride. In Ghana, a planned whistleblower meeting is disrupted when Whitney arrives first and intimidates the potential source (Tony), reinforcing fears of more dangerous forces behind Tender. Later, Whitney is revealed to be using a fabricated identity (a Lithuanian passport is shown) and a conversation indicates Russian-linked backers are laundering money through Tender, trapping Whitney and raising the stakes for everyone. They discuss Whitney's use of high-end escorts as tools for access and influence; Hayley confirms she and others were planted around key figures and that sex acts were recorded, confronting Yasmin with how they were exploited. Eric receives a compromising video involving an underage girl (“Dolly”) while with his daughter, but still appears on TV to push for a new audit, warning Whitney not to corner him and implying he could expose Whitney. Henry fires an auditor and tries to assert control as CEO, while Whitney continues drafting a “Dear Henry” letter about a “hole in the bucket,” revealed as a cash-flow/shortfall problem. The episode culminates in Eric meeting Harper with a lawyer present; he asks only for his original investment back to be put in trusts for his daughters if the short pays off, suggesting he may be planning to exit entirely. Eric admits he felt genuine pride watching Sweetpea, more than he expected he could feel, and the final image of him walking alone fuels Victor and Darren's concern about possible suicide or at least Eric's departure from the show. They close by anticipating two remaining Industry episodes, the A Knight of the Seven Kingdoms finale, and the upcoming launch of Paradise, while noting Darren will be traveling and will catch up later. 00:00 Welcome & What We're Covering This Week (Industry, The Pit, Drops of God, Nolan Rewatch) 02:36 Why This Week's Industry Episode ‘Dear Henry' Feels Like a Finale 03:20 Tender as a Ponzi: Looking for Real-World Analogs 05:24 FTX Explained: The Circular Token House of Cards 10:27 Wirecard: The Closer European Parallel (Fraud, Audits, Politics) 18:26 More Scams & Money Laundering Threads: Theranos, Ghana, and Beyond 19:59 What Industry Is Really Saying: The Emptiness of Wealth Culture 23:49 Darren Joins: Quick Detour Into the New GoT Prequel ‘A Knight of the Seven Kingdoms' 39:41 Back to Industry: First Impressions, Then Scene-by-Scene Breakdown Begins (Yasmin & Harper) 42:46 Yasmin vs. Harper: Self-Made Power vs. Riding Coattails 43:32 Trailer Talk: Are Harper & Yasmin Two Sides of the Same Coin? 45:48 Whitney's Shower Ambush & the ‘Hole in the Bucket' Letter 49:44 Boarding School ‘Experimentation' and Henry's Growing Suspicion 52:12 Whitney's Intimate Manipulation: Touch, Jealousy, and Control 57:03 Political Satire + Real-World Scam Parallels (FTX, Wirecard, Theranos) 01:01:35 ‘Too Big to Fail' Lies: Can a Fake World Hold Together? 01:03:06 Clubbing, Relapse Energy, and Henry's Night Spirals 01:05:53 Was Jim's Overdose a Setup? Russian Operatives and Higher Powers 01:08:36 Whitney Unmasked: Fake Identity, Ripley Vibes, and Being ‘Nothing' 01:13:39 Sweetpea's Alpha Conference Bombshell: Tender Is Worth Zero 01:16:57 Accra Whistleblower Meeting Goes Sideways + Hailey Reveal & Sex Tapes 01:20:00 Hailey's Agency-Girl Reveal & Missing Escort Mystery 01:21:32 Hailey Reads Whitney: Try-Hard Conman Energy 01:23:14 Escape Hatches & Suicide Hints Start Creeping In 01:23:59 Ferdinand's Info Dump: Russian Operatives Behind the Scheme 01:27:04 Eric's Blackmail Text: The Dolly Video Bombshell 01:29:39 CNN Showdown: Eric Forces the Audit and Shakes the House of Cards 01:33:09 Henry as CEO: Firing the Auditor & the ‘Dear Henry' Letter Trap 01:37:37 Hailey Warns Yasmin: Access, Exploitation, and Epstein Parallels 01:45:51 Eric's Final Meeting with Harper: Trust Fund Request & Devastating Exit 01:51:10 Wrap-Up: Class Tension, Finale Speculation, and Sign-Off

Once hailed as the next Steve Jobs, Elizabeth Holmes became the world's youngest self-made female billionaire after founding Theranos, a startup that promised to revolutionise healthcare with hundreds of blood tests from a single drop. BBC business editor Simon Jack and journalist Zing Tsjeng trace Elizabeth Holmes's journey from precocious Stanford student to biotech entrepreneur, before unpacking how secrecy and hype masked a technology that couldn't deliver. When Theranos collapsed spectacularly, a Silicon Valley dream became one of the biggest corporate scandals of the century. Good Bad Billionaire is the podcast that explores the lives of the super-rich and famous, tracking their wealth, philanthropy, business ethics, and success. There are leaders who made their money in Silicon Valley, on Wall Street and in high street fashion. From iconic celebrities and CEOs to titans of technology, the podcast unravels tales of fortune, power, economics, ambition and moral responsibility. Simon and Zing put their subjects to the test with a playful, totally unscientific scorecard — then hand the verdict over to you: are they good, bad, or simply billionaires? Here's how to contact the team: email goodbadbillionaire@bbc.com or send a text or WhatsApp to +1 (917) 686-1176. Find out more about the show and read our privacy notice at www.bbcworldservice.com/goodbadbillionaire

In this episode of Corporate Finance Explained on FinPod, we break down how company culture affects financial performance and why culture should be treated as a real asset or a serious liability. This episode shows how work culture directly shapes forecasting accuracy, capital allocation, risk management, and long-term value creation.Culture is not what a company says in its mission statement. It's what gets rewarded, tolerated, and ignored. From a finance perspective, those behaviors eventually show up in the numbers through turnover costs, project ROI, safety and compliance risk, and the quality of decision-making. This episode walks through culture using three practical lenses: culture as an efficiency engine, culture as a strategic asset, and culture as a value destroyer.In this episode, we cover:How culture drives margins through unit costs, productivity, and turnoverWhy Costco's wage and retention strategy can be an efficiency advantageHow Southwest's cost discipline becomes balance sheet resilience in downturnsWhy Danaher's operating system culture reduces execution risk in M&AHow Netflix uses radical transparency to improve capital allocation and avoid “zombie projects”Why Google's tolerance for failure functions like an internal venture portfolioWhat went wrong at WeWork, Wells Fargo, Boeing, and Theranos, and how culture distorted incentives and risk controlsThe financial signals that reveal culture problems, including forecast accuracy, budget variance patterns, project post-mortems, and hiring costsHow finance leaders influence culture by forcing clarity, challenging assumptions, and refusing “fluff numbers”This episode is designed for:Corporate finance professionalsFP&A teams are responsible for forecasting and budgetingFinance leaders involved in capital allocation and strategic planningAnyone managing risk, performance, or operational decision-making through financial reportingCorporate Finance Explained is a FinPod series from Corporate Finance Institute (CFI), created to make complex finance topics clearer, more practical, and easier to apply in real-world decision-making.Subscribe to FinPod for more corporate finance explainers, real-world case studies, and practical finance insights.

Dr. Keren Hulkower regals us with many stories of his days working in labs and into his career transition from biochemistry to becoming a medical fiction author. Dr. Hulkower discusses his new book 'Early Detection,' his experiences in both the scientific and writing communities, and how his scientific background influences his creative writing. He also shares personal anecdotes, offers insights into the publishing process, and talks about the challenges and rewards of balancing a scientific career with a passion for writing. Intriguingly, the episode includes mentions of gastrointestinal research and explores the competitive nature and politics of laboratory research.▬▬▬▬▬ Resources ▬▬▬▬▬Keren Hulkower: https://www.linkedin.com/in/keren-hulkower-37819710/Erick Mertz: https://www.linkedin.com/in/erickmertzwriting/https://www.isaakhulkowerllc.com/Great Stories Don't Write Themselves: https://www.amazon.com/Great-Stories-Dont-Write-Themselves/dp/1440300852Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/cacklemedia/TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@cacklemediaX: https://x.com/CackleMediaLLCYouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@CackleMediaLinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/cacklemedia/Support the pod when signing up for Descript / SquadCast: https://get.descript.com/transferableskillSign up for our newsletter: https://shorturl.at/WDrfTWant to be a guest on the show?: https://shorturl.at/umZ2l▬▬▬▬▬ Timestamps ▬▬▬▬▬00:00 Introduction to Transferable Skills00:07 Guest Introduction: Dr. Keren Hulkower00:24 Journey into Medical Fiction Writing00:52 Challenges and Triumphs in Writing02:15 Balancing Science and Writing03:41 Support Systems and Writing Process04:43 Publishing and Editing Insights08:48 Career in Biomedical Engineering09:42 Early Scientific Interests19:58 Competitive Nature of Scientific Research20:24 Challenging Research Methods21:36 Standardizing Cancer Diagnosis23:17 Data Manipulation Scandals24:29 Theranos and Proficiency Testing26:36 Navigating Lab Politics29:02 Adapting to New Research Fields34:55 Balancing Writing and Research41:51 Future Endeavors and Teaching

For years, corporate whistleblowers in the UK have found themselves in an unenviable predicament. They're encouraged to report wrongdoing, but at the same time they often feel like they've risked everything: their careers and livelihoods in exchange for little. In this special two-part series, we explore why critics think this system is failing whistleblowers and what the UK can do to change things.In part one: We hear from two whistleblowers who share why they blew the whistle and what went wrong after. Plus, the FT's financial regulation editor Martin Arnold and Mary Inman, the attorney who represented well-known whistleblowers such as Frances Haugen of Meta and Tyler Shultz of Theranos, discuss the systemic issues whistleblowers have faced in the UK. Part two airs next Monday, December 15.The FT does not use generative AI to voice its podcasts.- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - For further reading:Should corporate whistleblowers get paid?Whistleblowers could earn millions as HMRC targets tax fraudCorporate whistleblowing in the UK needs a shake-upAsset management: inside the scandal that rocked GAM - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Behind the Money host Michela Tindera is on X (@mtindera07) and Bluesky (@mtindera.ft.com), or follow her on LinkedIn for updates about the show and more.Read a transcript of this episode on FT.com Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

On May 5, 1993, three 8-year-old boys were brutally murdered in West Memphis, Arkansas. The tiny local police department launches an investigation but finds little physical evidence to lead them to a suspect. Eventually, outside pressure pushes them to charge someone with the killings, whether or not the evidence supports their conclusions.American Scandal takes you deep into the heart of America's dark side to look at what drives someone to break the rules and what happens when they're caught. In our latest series, three teenage boys are falsely accused of a vicious triple homicide, but their story doesn't end with their trials or convictions. Instead, their plight will capture the imagination of the entire country and spark a campaign for justice that will last for almost two decades. Listen to American Scandal: The West Memphis Three: Wondery.fm/AS_IFDSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Business is war. Sometimes the prize is your wallet or your attention. Sometimes, it's just the fun of beating the other guy. The outcome of these battles shapes what we buy and how we live. Business Wars gives you the unauthorized, real story of what drives these companies and their leaders, innovators, investors and executives to new heights -- or to ruin. In the newest season of Business Wars, dive into the high-stakes race to supply the world's hottest weight-loss drug. Listen to Business Wars: The Race to Ozempic: https://wondery.fm/BW_IFDSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

The Cold War, Prohibition, the Gold Rush, the Space Race. Every part of your life - the words you speak, the ideas you share - can be traced to our history, but how well do you really know the stories that made America? We'll take you to the events, the times and the people that shaped our nation. And we'll show you how our history affected them, their families and affects you today. Hosted by Lindsay Graham (not the Senator). Listen to American History Tellers: https://Wondery.fm/AHT_IFDSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

In this week's Coaching Hotline episode, I'm answering two questions that get to the core of how we manage our minds. The first explores how to handle phobias, like the fear of flying, and panic attacks by changing our relationship with anxiety itself. The second dives into a meta question about thought work: could managing our thoughts turn us into sociopaths? A listener draws parallels to Elizabeth Holmes and the Theranos scandal, wondering if there's a line between healthy thought management and dangerous self-deception. You'll discover why accepting anxiety instead of resisting it changes everything, and how true thought work differs from ego-driven deception.Submit your own question here and it might get answered on a future episode: unfuckyourbrain.com/coachinghotline Get full show notes, transcript, and more information here: schoolofnewfeministthought.com/437Follow along on Instagram: instagram.com/karaloewentheil/Mentioned in this episode:Learn How to Stop Caring What Other People ThinkGet this FREE workshop + guide by going to: https://the-school-of-new-feminist-thought.captivate.fm/hscGet the How to Stop Caring What Other People Think Workshop here!

Questions? Comments?Don and Tom kick off by joking about their “record-breaking” call drought before diving headlong into the week's biggest speculative loser: crypto. The duo dismantle the mythology around Bitcoin and its countless imitators, comparing the excitement of trading coins to sports betting and reminding listeners that portfolios are for investing, not gambling. They tie the current crypto crash to leverage, insider-like trades, and the same fraud patterns seen in history's great financial cons—from Jay Gould's gold-cornering to Elizabeth Holmes' blood-testing farce. Later, they field listener questions on asset location, liquidity management, emerging-market exposure, and the danger of leverage via MicroStrategy's Bitcoin bet. Through it all, they emphasize fiduciary discipline, skepticism toward hype, and the basic rule: excitement and good investing rarely mix.0:04 Pretending last Saturday's show didn't happen; Tom's pun about “Pacific” questions.1:41 Crypto crash carnage—Bitcoin off 16%, Ethereum down 25%, “Trump Coin” collapsing.2:30 Comparing crypto's thrill-seeking crowd to sports betting mania.3:55 Why your financial advisor should not be your gambling coach.4:48 The leveraged, insider-ish side of crypto speculation.5:06 The absurdity of 10,000+ coins that serve no purpose but gambling.7:40 Calling crypto “speculative” and comparing it to a casino roller coaster.8:10 Binance payout trouble—proof many players don't know how to run big-money businesses.10:32 MicroStrategy's leveraged Bitcoin plunge and the perils of margin.11:37 The illusion of “value” in digital tokens versus productive assets.12:55 Historical echo: borrowed money, bubbles, and 1929-style leverage warnings.15:25 Listener questions segment opens; lighthearted banter about philately and call volume.17:02 “ChatGPT beats bad advisors” — asset location done right (bonds in IRA, stocks in Roth).18:30 Why most “advisors” ignore tax planning in favor of commissions.20:23 Jay Gould, robber barons, and the Wall Street Journal's bizarre defense of con artists.22:12 From Nikola to Theranos—lying as business strategy and why “gray areas” hurt investors.24:53 The moral cost of tolerating fraud disguised as innovation.26:36 Why trust is the real foundation of capitalism, not creative deception.27:00 How to protect yourself: fee-only fiduciary advice and due diligence.27:36 Mariners hangover theory for low call volume; nostalgic TV banter (“Bewitched”).29:06 Caller Tom (Seattle): $4 M portfolio, $1 M in money market—how much liquidity is too much?30:34 The hidden risk of waiting too long to react when rates fall.33:08 Building a CD ladder to lock yield without betting on one-day rates.34:25 Quick take: Why they'd avoid owning Boeing stock individually.36:18 Caller Justin (Florida): emerging-market allocation for high-risk investors.37:29 Case for small-cap and value tilts, including emerging markets.38:34 Should you exclude China? Why it's still essential in global portfolios.39:29 Closing reminders—use the website for questions, and find fiduciary help at TalkingRealMoney.com.Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Don and Tom kick off by joking about their “record-breaking” call drought before diving headlong into the week's biggest speculative loser: crypto. The duo dismantle the mythology around Bitcoin and its countless imitators, comparing the excitement of trading coins to sports betting and reminding listeners that portfolios are for investing, not gambling. They tie the current crypto crash to leverage, insider-like trades, and the same fraud patterns seen in history's great financial cons—from Jay Gould's gold-cornering to Elizabeth Holmes' blood-testing farce. Later, they field listener questions on asset location, liquidity management, emerging-market exposure, and the danger of leverage via MicroStrategy's Bitcoin bet. Through it all, they emphasize fiduciary discipline, skepticism toward hype, and the basic rule: excitement and good investing rarely mix. 0:04 Pretending last Saturday's show didn't happen; Tom's pun about “Pacific” questions. 1:41 Crypto crash carnage—Bitcoin off 16%, Ethereum down 25%, “Trump Coin” collapsing. 2:30 Comparing crypto's thrill-seeking crowd to sports betting mania. 3:55 Why your financial advisor should not be your gambling coach. 4:48 The leveraged, insider-ish side of crypto speculation. 5:06 The absurdity of 10,000+ coins that serve no purpose but gambling. 7:40 Calling crypto “speculative” and comparing it to a casino roller coaster. 8:10 Binance payout trouble—proof many players don't know how to run big-money businesses. 10:32 MicroStrategy's leveraged Bitcoin plunge and the perils of margin. 11:37 The illusion of “value” in digital tokens versus productive assets. 12:55 Historical echo: borrowed money, bubbles, and 1929-style leverage warnings. 15:25 Listener questions segment opens; lighthearted banter about philately and call volume. 17:02 “ChatGPT beats bad advisors” — asset location done right (bonds in IRA, stocks in Roth). 18:30 Why most “advisors” ignore tax planning in favor of commissions. 20:23 Jay Gould, robber barons, and the Wall Street Journal's bizarre defense of con artists. 22:12 From Nikola to Theranos—lying as business strategy and why “gray areas” hurt investors. 24:53 The moral cost of tolerating fraud disguised as innovation. 26:36 Why trust is the real foundation of capitalism, not creative deception. 27:00 How to protect yourself: fee-only fiduciary advice and due diligence. 27:36 Mariners hangover theory for low call volume; nostalgic TV banter (“Bewitched”). 29:06 Caller Tom (Seattle): $4 M portfolio, $1 M in money market—how much liquidity is too much? 30:34 The hidden risk of waiting too long to react when rates fall. 33:08 Building a CD ladder to lock yield without betting on one-day rates. 34:25 Quick take: Why they'd avoid owning Boeing stock individually. 36:18 Caller Justin (Florida): emerging-market allocation for high-risk investors. 37:29 Case for small-cap and value tilts, including emerging markets. 38:34 Should you exclude China? Why it's still essential in global portfolios. 39:29 Closing reminders—use the website for questions, and find fiduciary help at TalkingRealMoney.com. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Natalie Cochran seemed like she had it all: a good job as a pharmacist, a loving husband, and two kids. But then she quit her job to become a government contractor and started raking in dough, or so she claimed. Behind the scenes, Natalie was running a classic Ponzi scheme, scamming friends and family with fake contracts, fake government emails, and even fake cancer. But when the walls start closing in, lies alone won't be enough to save her… These are the stories of the world's most insidious Scamfluencers. And we are their prey. Every week on Scamfluencers, join co-hosts Scaachi Koul and Sarah Hagi as they unpack epic stories of deception from the worlds of social media, fashion, finance, health, and wellness. These influencers claim to be everything from charismatic healers to trusted financial insiders to experts in dating. They cast spells over millions. Why do we believe them, and how does our culture allow them to thrive? Listen now: Wondery.fm/SCAMSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

In this episode of The Mind Shift Podcast, Erwin and Aaron McManus take a hard look at the fine line between failed ideas and fraudulent schemes. From Tai Lopez's $112M SEC indictment to Elizabeth Holmes and the fall of Theranos, they explore how ambition can devolve into deception, and why proof of concept is critical in business, leadership, and communication. Along the way, they even break down the illusion behind Amazon's early wireless shopping system and what it teaches us about trust.The conversation then turns to the world of media and public discourse, sparked by Jimmy Kimmel's apology after his recent controversial remarks that led to his suspension and subsequent reinstatement. Was his apology on his show sincere, or just self-preservation? Erwin and Aaron dig into the language of apologies, the role of sincerity in public life, and what it reveals about our cultural climate. From there, they dive deep into censorship, free speech, and the hypocrisy of how different figures, like President Trump, are treated depending on political affiliation, unpacking the legal and cultural ripple effects of his battles with media companies.Finally, the episode broadens into questions of corruption, political polarization, and the role of education in shaping the next generation. Erwin argues that without free speech, truth and accountability crumble, while Aaron highlights how media bias continues to fuel division. Together they make the case for rebuilding trust, protecting free expression, and investing in education as the path toward a healthier, more hopeful future.--Love the episodes? Join the Mind Shift community! Check it out here: http://erwinmcmanus.com/mindshiftpod--

Max and the Celtics are back (00:00:00-00:21:02). We talk about the weekend in playoffs including the Warriors being a bummer without Steph, the Thunder and Nuggets playing horrendous basketball on Sunday, the Pacers blowout (00:21:02-00:43:52). We talk some hockey and PFT has a must win tag on Monday night and we had an insane buzzer beater in Edmonton (00:43:52-00:54:51). NFL News including schedule release week and Derek Carr retires (00:54:51-01:08:16). Who's back of the week including Theranos and the Rockies fire Bud Black because their owners suck (01:08:16-01:22:16). Rachel Nichols joins the show to talk NBA playoffs, where Giannis will play next year, Lebron paycut, MVP and more (01:22:16-02:00:49). We finish with Jordon of the week with recent new news about her and Bill Belichick and Max is back and gives us gifts from Hawaii (02:00:49-02:24:00).You can find every episode of this show on Apple Podcasts, Spotify or YouTube. Prime Members can listen ad-free on Amazon Music. For more, visit barstool.link/pardon-my-take