Re: An Actual Thing

1

Why so many people from the defense and foreign policy establishment? The epidemiologist is great, but there aren't as many business people as you would think.


Posted by: Bostoniangirl | Link to this comment | 10- 2-14 6:35 PM
horizontal rule
2

So this totally doesn't exist yet, you can't get or pay for the tests and nobody knows how good they are, they just have VC funding which, with some financial hand-waving, puts her paper wealth in the billions. Is there a separate "most likely to suddenly not be a billionaire" list? It looks like she should be on it.


Posted by: Nathan Williams | Link to this comment | 10- 2-14 6:42 PM
horizontal rule
3

How amazing that this woman with this background was able to pull herself up by her bootstraps and achieve such success.

But yeah. Having a cool idea for a medical device as a college sophomore: good! Being at Stanford, having a ton of built-in seed money since your family is from old wealth, having the backing of government heavyweights your parents know so that you can last long enough as an enterprise to clear the many high, high bars involved in both manufacturing and medical device production and licensing: arguably more important!

Anyhow, good for her. She seems smart!


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 10- 2-14 6:44 PM
horizontal rule
4

Why so many people from the defense and foreign policy establishment?

If you want a tame board that conveys seriousness while representing no threat to management, superannuated politicians are a great choice. Doubley so if your company has occasional need for a fixer in regulatory or public procurement matters.


Posted by: knecht ruprecht | Link to this comment | 10- 2-14 6:45 PM
horizontal rule
5

I happen to know a bit about this area, the patents involved, the business strategy. Dr. Evil is a good person to have on board for their plan. They're setting up a very aggressive IP position, marketing the fact that they're going to be x fold cheaper than existing tests to break into the payment schedules, and they're planning to build monopoly market share at which point we're all fucked. They're setting up to exploit the very non-fluid market of diagnostics, between IP, FDA, and reimbursement negotiation. Don't be surprised if in 10 years you can't get the traditional kinds of blood tests and this test costs more than standard ones do now, with a vastly larger profit margin for our little genius.


Posted by: SP | Link to this comment | 10- 2-14 6:49 PM
horizontal rule
6

It occurs to me that I actually knew a woman who developed a best-in-class device for instant diagnosis of a dangerous condition as a college undergrad. I don't think she made a red cent off it, despite having the patent, but maybe there's still time.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 10- 2-14 6:49 PM
horizontal rule
7

I had been wondering where Bill Frist had found himself.


Posted by: Flippanter | Link to this comment | 10- 2-14 6:49 PM
horizontal rule
8

5 to 1- the reason for all the defense people is that military contracting takes advantage of some of the same kinds of market failures to lock companies into long term monopoly profits.


Posted by: SP | Link to this comment | 10- 2-14 6:50 PM
horizontal rule
9

None of which is to say the technology is a bad idea- it is quite useful. But we're going to pay for it.


Posted by: SP | Link to this comment | 10- 2-14 6:53 PM
horizontal rule
10

Dr. Evil is a good person to have on board for their plan.

If this is true of your business, it can only say bad things about the state of your soul.


Posted by: rob helpy-chalk | Link to this comment | 10- 2-14 6:57 PM
horizontal rule
11

this totally doesn't exist yet

It does, from what I can tell--at a few dozen Walgreens in Arizona and one in Palo Alto.


Posted by: ogged | Link to this comment | 10- 2-14 6:58 PM
horizontal rule
12

10: What if you just have a business concerning hairless cats?


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 10- 2-14 7:00 PM
horizontal rule
13

12: I'd favor a board comprised of burly, no-nonsense Eastern European women, based on the stories I've heard.


Posted by: Flippanter | Link to this comment | 10- 2-14 7:15 PM
horizontal rule
14

Am I the only one for whom the name "Theranos" invokes images of a hulking purple-skinned death worshipper from Titan?


Posted by: essear | Link to this comment | 10- 2-14 7:32 PM
horizontal rule
15

evokes, I probably mean.


Posted by: essear | Link to this comment | 10- 2-14 7:33 PM
horizontal rule
16

TOO LATE.


Posted by: THERANOS | Link to this comment | 10- 2-14 7:43 PM
horizontal rule
17

14: I thought of that immediately, too.

I also failed, this afternoon, to adequately answer a 9-year-old's questions about the infinity gauntlet.


Posted by: rob helpy-chalk | Link to this comment | 10- 2-14 7:47 PM
horizontal rule
18

17.2: No one ever answered mine.


Posted by: essear | Link to this comment | 10- 2-14 7:49 PM
horizontal rule
19

Young, attractive entrepreneur worth billions doing medical industry stuff, with a board full of quiescent military-industrial lackeys? I kind of assume she's one of the aliens from V.


Posted by: snarkout | Link to this comment | 10- 2-14 8:44 PM
horizontal rule
20

Okay, now I feel under-accomplished for my age. I'm not even a millionaire yet, let alone a billionaire!


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 10- 2-14 9:14 PM
horizontal rule
21

Not in terms of dollars, teo. But you're a millionaire … in spirit.


Posted by: nosflow | Link to this comment | 10- 2-14 9:21 PM
horizontal rule
22

Aw, thanks, neb.


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 10- 2-14 10:07 PM
horizontal rule
23

16: lol


Posted by: k-sky | Link to this comment | 10- 2-14 10:32 PM
horizontal rule
24

19: lol


Posted by: knecht ruprecht | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 4:15 AM
horizontal rule
25

attractive entrepreneur

FWIW, the headshots on the website and the magazine covers must be carefully selected and/or heavily photoshopped. A more candid view reveals someone of decidedly average looks (NTTAWWT).


Posted by: knecht ruprecht | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 4:28 AM
horizontal rule
26

...which brings up the depressing thought that somewhere along the way, one of her advisors (or she herself) determined that "hot blonde"* needed to become a core pillar of her "personal brand", the better to generate buzz for the enterprise. That's not a criticism of her, but a pessimistic commentary on media culture.

* not her natural hair color, apparently.


Posted by: knecht ruprecht | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 4:40 AM
horizontal rule
27

not her natural hair color
Is there a blood test to determine that?


Posted by: SP | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 4:50 AM
horizontal rule
28

Is there a blood test to determine that?

Mickey Spillane publicized a low tech, minimally invasive test back in the 1940s, albeit one of questionable accuracy.


Posted by: knecht ruprecht | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 4:55 AM
horizontal rule
29

I'm sort of surprised that something like this took so long to appear. Tons of people were working on the "lab on a chip" idea back in the late 90s/early 2000s. A lot of that work was being funded by the military, which might explain the military types on the board.

This doesn't sound exactly like lab on a chip, but it's not far off.


Posted by: AcademicLurker | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 4:57 AM
horizontal rule
30

Female scientists are usually supposed to be either librarian-sexy or sort of spinster aunt. I'm surprised she doesn't wear glasses to look smarter. (Yeah, I'm touchy. Because getting asked whether my hair color is natural shouldn't have a thing to do with whether I am good. No, wearing glasses doesn't make me look smarter, thanks. No, I don't want to be a sales rep.)


Posted by: ydnew | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 5:01 AM
horizontal rule
31

Nobody thinks my glasses make me look smarter.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 5:15 AM
horizontal rule
32

If you look through the bottom of them, everyone looks smarter.


Posted by: ajay | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 5:27 AM
horizontal rule
33

My hair color is natural, but I have no venture capital.


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 5:28 AM
horizontal rule
34

They're setting up a very aggressive IP position, marketing the fact that they're going to be x fold cheaper than existing tests to break into the payment schedules, and they're planning to build monopoly market share at which point we're all fucked. They're setting up to exploit the very non-fluid market of diagnostics, between IP, FDA, and reimbursement negotiation. Don't be surprised if in 10 years you can't get the traditional kinds of blood tests and this test costs more than standard ones do now, with a vastly larger profit margin for our little genius.

"My plan is to make ONE MILLION DOLLARS by dominating the blood test market."
"How will you achieve this, sir?"
"Simple. In stage one I will found a startup company that will break into the blood test market with cheaper technology. In stage two, I will gain a monopoly market share. And in stage three I will increase prices to far beyond their current level and exploit my monopoly position! Yes, what is it, Number Two?"
"Sir, isn't there a risk in stage three that someone will just found a startup offering the current technology at the current price, and undercut your inflated prices?"
"Don't be a cretin, Number Two. Everyone knows it is impossible for a startup to break into the blood test market simply by offering a cheaper service."
"Oh, right. Sorry, sir."


Posted by: ajay | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 5:32 AM
horizontal rule
35

My hair color is natural, but I have no venture capital.

This sounds like the first two lines of a rap.


Posted by: ajay | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 5:33 AM
horizontal rule
36

...boyeee.


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 5:36 AM
horizontal rule
37

So all this hype is because this is The Silicon Valley Startup version of a concept that many many other people have, but it is inevitably going to be the one and only winner because Silicon Valley Startup status means infinite capital that it can use to make its products incredibly cheap until its competitors are gone.


Posted by: Cryptic ned | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 5:39 AM
horizontal rule
38

What's the test for? I should read the link, I guess, but I'm just going to assume syphilis.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 5:41 AM
horizontal rule
39

It's the test for EVERYTHING THAT YOU CAN DO A BLOOD TEST FOR. They're disrupting blood.


Posted by: Cryptic ned | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 5:43 AM
horizontal rule
40

Everything-everything or all social diseases-everything?


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 5:47 AM
horizontal rule
41

Everything. Blood sugar, malaria, HIV, depression, night starvation, restless leg syndrome, liquidity trap, petitio principii, card clash, communism, transonic wobble and supercavitation.


Posted by: ajay | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 5:56 AM
horizontal rule
42

These tests.


Posted by: ogged | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 5:58 AM
horizontal rule
43

And, of course, crise de foi, falling out and solar magnetic storms.


Posted by: ajay | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 5:59 AM
horizontal rule
44


I'm surprised she doesn't wear glasses to look smarter.

One of my daughters recently started wearing glasses, and it has produced an astonishing change, not only in how others perceive her, but in how she perceives herself. Previously she was the beautiful popular one in the class (she is, and I say this with all the impartiality a father can muster, a beautiful child). She was starting to absorb and reflect back messages like "I'm bad at math." Wearing glasses instantly gave her a more intellectual appearance, and she has has sort of embraced the nerdy side of her personality in dress and comportment. She's become a lot more comfortable with being one of the smart kids in the class. I'm delighted, to tell you the truth. The ideal outcome from my POV is that sometime around age 22 she unpins her hair and takes off the glasses in a sexy librarian reveal.


Posted by: knecht ruprecht | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 6:02 AM
horizontal rule
45

You can get a lipid panel and a syphilis screen for under $20.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 6:03 AM
horizontal rule
46

45 is interior decorating advice you can use.


Posted by: ajay | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 6:17 AM
horizontal rule
47

44:

Absolutely. It's had that impact on generations in my family, and I observed the intellectualization of both my kids, who had the home culture to carry it off. Doubly reinforcing.

I would have expected the social effect of this to have worn off generations ago, but it only seems to grow stronger as a presumption, and definitely impacts how others see you and how you see yourself, so to speak.

Pol Pot was on to something.


Posted by: idp | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 6:18 AM
horizontal rule
48

47: controlled experiment that heebie can do. First child doesn't wear glasses. Second wears glasses (with flat lenses, if her sight is OK). Third child wears a monocle. Observe the effects.


Posted by: ajay | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 6:22 AM
horizontal rule
49

45- Add a liver function test and market it as the Night of Debauchery special.


Posted by: SP | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 6:26 AM
horizontal rule
50

It makes sense that the social effect of glasses has grown stronger. Contact lenses and corrective surgery are better and cheaper now, so glasses are optional for a lot of people.


Posted by: L. | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 6:29 AM
horizontal rule
51

The ideal outcome from my POV is that sometime around age 22 she unpins her hair and takes off the glasses in a sexy librarian reveal.

Gross.


Posted by: L. | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 6:31 AM
horizontal rule
52

50: Those really aren't options available for kids, but I suppose even so I would affect the culture overall.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 6:31 AM
horizontal rule
53

Gross.

I think he means "rediscovers that she's conventionally beautiful and learns to trade on that, because why not?" Or he means he's going to have sex with his daughter. You never know.


Posted by: ogged | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 6:35 AM
horizontal rule
54

You can take the boy out of West Virginia but ...


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 6:37 AM
horizontal rule
55

I think he means "rediscovers that she's conventionally beautiful and learns to trade on that, because why not?"

More that I hope she continues to embrace her inner nerd at least until the completion of her tertiary education, after which she is welcome to present as conventionally beautiful.

And 54 was below the belt.


Posted by: knecht ruprecht | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 6:46 AM
horizontal rule
56

...though funny, I am forced to concede.


Posted by: knecht ruprecht | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 6:49 AM
horizontal rule
57

cheaper now, so glasses are optional for a lot of people

And in our Warby Parker age are treated as an accessory that people have 5-7 pairs of.


Posted by: Criminally Bulgur | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 6:50 AM
horizontal rule
58

I wish the "take the glasses off and the mousy girl turns into Rachael Leigh Cook" thing worked. I also wish that when I took my glasses off I turned into George Clooney. Life is so disappointing.


Posted by: dalriata | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 6:52 AM
horizontal rule
59

And 54 was below the belt.

If you can't keep it above (the pants) the belt (is holding up)...


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 6:52 AM
horizontal rule
60

55.last: Yes it was. I hesitated briefly before clicking "Post.".


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 6:52 AM
horizontal rule
61

In the future, wearing glasses will just make everybody think you're in the NBA.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 6:53 AM
horizontal rule
62

I hesitated briefly

You'll get over that.


Posted by: ogged | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 6:53 AM
horizontal rule
63

57: I'd say this is a good thing in general. Turning long-term medical aids into accessories helps with destigmatization. And having 5-7 pairs helps with breaking them.


Posted by: dalriata | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 6:54 AM
horizontal rule
64

I hesitated a lot as a teenager.


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 6:54 AM
horizontal rule
65

49: "shoot, fella could assess the effects of a pretty good weekend in Vegas with this."


Posted by: ajay | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 6:55 AM
horizontal rule
66

destigmatization

But that's what my glasses were already for.


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 6:56 AM
horizontal rule
67

Turning long-term medical aids into accessories helps with destigmatization.

On a related note, I hope that more elderly people using walking aids helps revive the walking stick as an article of daily use. I really want a reason to buy a sword cane.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 6:56 AM
horizontal rule
68

Unfortunately the walking stick is not so common anymore. I think you'll have to get a double-barrelled walker-cannon.


Posted by: Cryptic ned | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 6:57 AM
horizontal rule
69

65: shoot

Ob. trivia: Was "Dallas" in the original. But not when it opened Jan.29, 1964.


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 6:58 AM
horizontal rule
70

Turning long-term medical aids into accessories helps with destigmatization.

Can't really talk about this without violating confidentiality, but there are people betting the same thing can happen with hearing aids.


Posted by: knecht ruprecht | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 6:58 AM
horizontal rule
71

I blame this new rock 'n roll music and the hi-fi stereos these kids have today.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 7:00 AM
horizontal rule
72

I hope that more elderly people using walking aids helps revive the walking stick as an article of daily use. I really want a reason to buy a sword cane.

The market is way ahead of you.


Posted by: knecht ruprecht | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 7:01 AM
horizontal rule
73

The market has provided canes with actual swords hidden in the middle. What the market hasn't done yet is provide a way for a forty-something guy to carry one without looking like super-douche.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 7:04 AM
horizontal rule
74

69: Would not have been as obnoxious as this Dallas tour bus. Bonus strategic door handle placement.


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 7:08 AM
horizontal rule
75

Searching TFA for "sword cane" brings up 16 hits. Impressive.


Posted by: dalriata | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 7:10 AM
horizontal rule
76

I have few obsessions and they are durable.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 7:11 AM
horizontal rule
77

73: You could go for the "middle aged Alex and his droogs" look.


Posted by: AcademicLurker | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 7:14 AM
horizontal rule
78

What you need is google sword glass. Then you'd look cool!


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 7:19 AM
horizontal rule
79

Eccentric Squirrel Hill Cob House Resident Assaults Russian Emigré with Cane Sword in Parking Dispute. Suspect Later Apprehended at Nearby Bar.


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 7:19 AM
horizontal rule
80

Again.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 7:20 AM
horizontal rule
81

74: Tour bus company weighing an ebola tie-in, I'm sure.


Posted by: bill | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 7:30 AM
horizontal rule
82

You could be the famed bartitsu master of Shadyside, Moby.


Posted by: snarkout | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 7:31 AM
horizontal rule
83

I hardly ever go to Shadyside, though I guess I'm about three blocks away from it.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 7:33 AM
horizontal rule
84

"The stick-fighting academic of Regent Square" has a better ring to it.


Posted by: Cryptic ned | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 7:35 AM
horizontal rule
85

I wish the "take the glasses off and the mousy girl turns into Rachael Leigh Cook" thing worked

I don't know what's not working for you. When I take off my glasses, everybody turns blurrily and indistinctly lovely.


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 7:36 AM
horizontal rule
86

84: I go there even less.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 7:36 AM
horizontal rule
87

Let's face it. Our neighborhood's name isn't intimidating in the slightest. It sounds like a joke.

But I do like the new squirrel-shaped bike-locking-things. Which I admittedly couldn't parse as squirrels until someone else pointed it out.


Posted by: dalriata | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 7:40 AM
horizontal rule
88

It is hilly, in an eroded plateau kind of way, and full of squirrels.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 7:42 AM
horizontal rule
89

There are squirrels everywhere. But Squirrel Hill is the only place I've ever seen a Flying squirrel.

Away with this yet another digression into the hole that has no bottom, Pittsburgh neighborhoods. What's the deal with this youthful titan of industry?


Posted by: Cryptic ned | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 7:42 AM
horizontal rule
90

85- And it's much cheaper than obtaining the equivalent effect via alcohol.


Posted by: SP | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 7:45 AM
horizontal rule
91

88: But Squirrel Hill isn't as hilly as Greenfield.

89: A'ight. I'm done. My understanding is that she doesn't wear glasses because she is an alien from V.


Posted by: dalriata | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 7:46 AM
horizontal rule
92

My understanding is that she doesn't wear glasses because she is an alien from V.

She should start showing up to investor meetings and press conferences carrying a sword cane. That way every one would know that her company is bad ass.


Posted by: AcademicLurker | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 7:50 AM
horizontal rule
93

She should starting showing up to investor meetings with a sword cane because Dr. Evil might be there.


Posted by: dalriata | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 7:53 AM
horizontal rule
94

Come on, it's Thanatos or whatever we're talking about, not Palantir.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 7:54 AM
horizontal rule
95

Should I call him Dr. Strangelove instead?


Posted by: dalriata | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 7:55 AM
horizontal rule
96

94 was to 92. Dr. Evil and Palantir seem perfectly congenial.

Clearly the solution to making it super-big as an entrepreneur is a name that makes your company sound crazy evil. Uber, Theranos, Palantir, Blackwater. Just wait until I launch Secret Volcano Lair Inc.!


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 7:58 AM
horizontal rule
97

Greenfield would be a good place for a lair.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 7:59 AM
horizontal rule
98

That is, if you can't get a volcano or if you realize that trying to hide in a volcano is difficult due to the legendary persistence of vulcanologists.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 8:00 AM
horizontal rule
99

"godDAMMIT those weirdos from the volcano blog are flying drones overhead again. What the hell do I even build killer robots for?"


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 8:01 AM
horizontal rule
100

96.2: but, then again, Google. We're worried about the danger to our civil liberties and our very identities posed by an organisation whose name literally is a noise made by a preverbal toddler.


Posted by: ajay | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 8:07 AM
horizontal rule
101

99: I LOLed.


Posted by: alameida | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 8:08 AM
horizontal rule
102

I wish the "take the glasses off and the mousy girl turns into Rachael Leigh Cook" thing worked

Man, was I disappointed when I found out this didn't work reliably. Peace Corps, working late with a fellow teacher, glasses off, hair down, soulful looks...? Nothing.

Stupid New Zealanders.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 8:11 AM
horizontal rule
103

100: hm, so names that are evil and names that are childish work? How big a Series A round you think we can get for Mr. Poopy Monster Enterprises?


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 8:11 AM
horizontal rule
104

My next big texting app idea, "I know you are but what am I?"


Posted by: SP | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 8:14 AM
horizontal rule
105

Baby Hitler. Company slogan. "Goo goo! Gaa gaa! Achtung! Schnell!"


Posted by: Walt Someguy | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 8:14 AM
horizontal rule
106

104: iRubberGlue


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 8:15 AM
horizontal rule
107

102: Maybe should have stuck with mousy? An attractive New Zealander is going to be athletic and fit as all get out. First-year economics says that you should play up your comparative advantage.


Posted by: dalriata | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 8:17 AM
horizontal rule
108

"Torn condom? No need to waste it."


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 8:17 AM
horizontal rule
109

Clearly the solution to making it super-big as an entrepreneur is a name that makes your company sound crazy evil. Uber, Theranos, Palantir, Blackwater. Just wait until I launch Secret Volcano Lair Inc.!

And with Blackwater, they had to change from Victorian evil to cyber-evil ("Xe").

Maybe Theranos should just become "V".


Posted by: Cryptic ned | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 8:20 AM
horizontal rule
110

108: It's a massive improve'lence over the tacks.


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 8:20 AM
horizontal rule
111

107: Not to impugn the fitness of a man I was actually crushing on at the time, but you're picturing the wrong kind of New Zealander.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 8:25 AM
horizontal rule
112

You're into the unattractive New Zealanders.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 8:26 AM
horizontal rule
113

I've expressed my irritation with Palantir before, but are there any other companies out there with Tolkienish names? Mithril? Nazgul? Gandalf? Most of the obvious ones are un-Googleable, I suppose.


Posted by: ajay | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 8:29 AM
horizontal rule
114

I was at a school forty miles from the ferry that was the only way to get to the less populated island of Samoa, and if I'd dated a local I would have had to marry them (or at least pretend I was going to). I was working with the options available. Not successfully, mind you.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 8:29 AM
horizontal rule
115

This kind?


Posted by: Cryptic ned | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 8:29 AM
horizontal rule
116

43: A crise de foie you can do a blood test for. A crise de foi you need a theologian for and they don't come so cheap.

Despite this, I wouldn't like to be raising venture capital for an app which will disrupt the market in theologians.


Posted by: Nworb Werdna | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 8:29 AM
horizontal rule
117

What I find myself wondering is this: if blood tests (for all kinds of things, apparently!) suddenly become much faster and cheaper, how many companies, schools, prison systems, etc will step up their use of blood tests and develop new regulatory regimes? In theory there's HIPAA, of course, but my home institution has about a million "we will give you an insurance discount if you will give us your medical history" programs for employees, which seem to be completely legal. How long before "unless you take this blood test twice a year, you'll be paying $100/extra per month for health insurance" becomes standard? Not to mention how all this could go down in prisons, the military and schools. I bet you could get a lot of useful information if you were able to insist on regular, fast blood testing.


Posted by: Frowner | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 8:34 AM
horizontal rule
118

111: I meant more that given what someone from enzed can find back home as a matter of course, you can't win in the conventional attractiveness competition. You need to take the competition elsewhere, real blue ocean stuff.

113: I've mentioned them, too. A recruiter from them cheerfully and enthusiastically linkedin stalked me. Creepy.


Posted by: dalriata | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 8:34 AM
horizontal rule
119

113: Rivendell Bicycle Works.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 8:35 AM
horizontal rule
120

If the test works it's only a matter of time before cops are issued little finger-stickers to test for the presence of drugs in traffic stops and the like. I notice the test picks up MDMA and Marijuana (the only two I looked for), so presumably the whole thing could be turned into a drug-specific little unit that could fit in the trunk of a cop car. I doubt that the four-hour turnaround would apply to something as simple as a drug screen.

Since I haven't read the thread I'm probably pwned, but I was busy reading the OP links, unlike some people.


Posted by: togolosh | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 8:35 AM
horizontal rule
121

117: I find the steady trend of employers finding ways to use "health" as an excuse to push into their employees' private lives to be extremely chilling.


Posted by: AcademicLurker | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 8:37 AM
horizontal rule
122

There's Elrond Hubbard, but I guess that isn't a company.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 8:37 AM
horizontal rule
123


How long before "unless you take this blood test twice a year, you'll be paying $100/extra per month for health insurance" becomes standard?

About a year and a half.



Posted by: kermit roosevelt, jr. | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 8:42 AM
horizontal rule
124

118.1: Despite the fact that this was literally twenty years ago, I'm depressed now.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 8:43 AM
horizontal rule
125

117: I saw that movie already.


Posted by: Nathan Williams | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 8:45 AM
horizontal rule
126

124: The various realizations I've had over the years of failed tactics and missed opportunities always manage to depress me a bit. I've got some doozies.


Posted by: togolosh | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 8:47 AM
horizontal rule
127

If you search for Legolas on Google Maps, you'll find a housing development at the very northern tip of Charlotte with a lot of Tolkienian side streets - Hobbitshire, Elendil, Bucklebury, Brandybuck, Aragorn, Numenore, etc.

If the test works it's only a matter of time before cops are issued little finger-stickers to test for the presence of drugs in traffic stops and the like. I notice the test picks up MDMA and Marijuana (the only two I looked for), so presumably the whole thing could be turned into a drug-specific little unit that could fit in the trunk of a cop car. I doubt that the four-hour turnaround would apply to something as simple as a drug screen.

Isn't it a slight improvement to use blood rather than urine? Not detecting people who used something two weeks ago, but mostly people who are currently under the influence?


Posted by: Minivet | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 8:52 AM
horizontal rule
128

I shall choose to believe that none of you reprobates gets 13, rather than credit the obviously-unreasonable possibility that it wasn't funny.


Posted by: Flippanter | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 8:54 AM
horizontal rule
129

124: Sorry. That was shit of me, wasn't my intent. But you have ended up having what sounds like a pretty badass life since then. (And actually, Peace Corps in Samoa is awesome, too.)


Posted by: dalriata | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 8:56 AM
horizontal rule
130

13 did get a snicker out of me.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 8:56 AM
horizontal rule
131

129: No, no, I've been doing 'romantically hapless' schtick here for a decade. No actual feelings were hurt in the production of comment 124.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 8:58 AM
horizontal rule
132

UCI has (or at least used to have) a bunch of dorms named after places in Middle Earth.

Sure someone must have started a hedge fund called Morgoth Investments by now, right?


Posted by: AcademicLurker | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 8:58 AM
horizontal rule
133

The various realizations I've had over the years of failed tactics and missed opportunities always manage to depress me a bit.

Console yourself with the still greater suffering of another.


Posted by: knecht ruprecht | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 8:59 AM
horizontal rule
134

132: sure = surely.


Posted by: AcademicLurker | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 8:59 AM
horizontal rule
135

131: Oh. Phew. I was thinking "successful marriage whose courtship involved a catsuit" would win out over past missed opportunities.


Posted by: dalriata | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 9:04 AM
horizontal rule
136

The catsuit story is something I think of as part of the hapless schtick. It was entirely ridiculous.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 9:06 AM
horizontal rule
137

But it was successful, right? So it's not hapless but instead passes into sexy legend.


Posted by: dalriata | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 9:10 AM
horizontal rule
138

Results-based thinking based on individual episodes is the root of many flawed strategies. (See Ravens long-term contract with Joe Flacco for instance).


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 9:13 AM
horizontal rule
139

116: Wow. I hadn't heard of that. I feel like the mainstream thing to do these days is go to the Church Divinity Shool of the Pacific, if on the West Coast or Yale's Berkeley if the East. Harvard may be acceptable but you have to pursue extra Anglican education. The diocese of Northern California will not let postulants go to either EDS or Nashotah House. It looks like General could be on that list.

And holy crap, I hope that the woman who heard the Dean say "I love vaginas" sues on the grounds of sexual harassment.

It's totally absurd to get rid of daily Eucharist if your job is the formation of Episcopal priests.


Posted by: Bostoniangirl | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 9:15 AM
horizontal rule
140

So, now I'm regretting that I didn't read the link in 116.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 9:19 AM
horizontal rule
141

140: Among other things, he doesn't want General to be known as the gay seminary.


Posted by: Bostoniangirl | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 9:22 AM
horizontal rule
142

134: and there was me thinking that you were after talking stage Irish.


Posted by: ajay | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 9:22 AM
horizontal rule
143

117: They already do the thing where you pay extra for health insurance. Right now, some people lie and say they got the blood tests. I'm holding out, because I value my privacy.

I had a co-worker who got her insurance through her husband's employer, a biginsurance company. She believed that because she was healthy--exercised and didn't smoke--she should pay less. I thought that this was kind of odd for someone who worked with/served disabled people with serious mental illness who were poor and on public insurance.

She also failed to disclose to her car insurer that she used her personal car in her work.

I would be okay with cash payments to go to the gym, if we didn't have an employer-based health insurance system.


Posted by: Bostoniangirl | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 9:45 AM
horizontal rule
144

Having read the thread, I'd just like to say that the candid photos in 25 look like a very attractive woman to my eye. Aside from the fact that we're obnoxiously dissecting her looks.


Posted by: heebie-geebie | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 9:50 AM
horizontal rule
145

144: It's Knecht, who has a long history of being like that. From someone else, I'd figure it was intentional chain-yanking, but from Knecht I think he's just really impressively not self-aware about this stuff.

But of course you're right.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 10:02 AM
horizontal rule
146

I've seen the documentaries: it's clear that NZ is full of people who look like this.


Posted by: CharleyCarp | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 10:05 AM
horizontal rule
147

Okay, now I feel under-accomplished for my age. I'm not even a millionaire yet, let alone a billionaire!

Incidentally, I've been feeling like an underachiever lately because somebody that I met when he was building his own niche fantasy basketball game (about 8-10 years ago) is now, at 26, VP for Basketball Strategy of the 76ers (with a reported $250K salary).


Posted by: NickS | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 10:05 AM
horizontal rule
148

he's just really impressively not self-aware

I was fully aware that making that comment might rub people the wrong way, and I agree that dissecting her looks for its own sake would be obnoxious. I went out on a limb because thought that it says something interesting that they have gone to such great lengths to in turn her into a mannequin representing the company, in the way that would be close to unthinkable for a male CEO. I mean, with the right makeover and camerawork, you could probably make Zuckerberg look like a runway model, but no one would think to do that.


Posted by: knecht ruprecht | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 10:18 AM
horizontal rule
149

Mmhmm. Sure you did.


Posted by: heebie-geebie | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 10:32 AM
horizontal rule
150

Knecht is the true feminist. I do think he's mostly right about 148--the most Zuckerberg got was some grumbling about his hoodie.


Posted by: ogged | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 10:32 AM
horizontal rule
151

149: Re-read 26 and the final parenthetical in 25.


Posted by: knecht ruprecht | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 10:33 AM
horizontal rule
152

"Decidedly average" is pretty batshit, based on the photos you linked, unless to you 'average' doesn't mean "near the median of attractiveness" but means something more like "Probably couldn't make a living in a job depending on her looks alone."

Other than that, I don't think there's anything more to explain than that a professionally polished look, on a young, attractive woman, isn't all that different from a glamorous look. Starting from what she actually looks like, her options are glamorous or affirmatively scruffy.

This sort of picking apart the significance of what women look like is a thing in itself -- that there is no mode of self-presentation for a woman that's unmarked. At least, not so long as guys like you are putting in the effort to make sure there isn't.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 10:33 AM
horizontal rule
153

Speaking of making into mannequins, I had no idea that Gigi was so recent or that Colette died in the 20th century. I'd always thought of her as being back with Flaubert and Hugo. Possibly because I never read any of them.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 10:34 AM
horizontal rule
154

I wanted to say 144 but wasn't sure how. "I'd still hit that, but in a feminist way that doesn't belittle her success, and only if she were into it."


Posted by: Unfoggetarian: "Pause endlessly, then go in." (9) | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 10:35 AM
horizontal rule
155

She's still, in my opinion, a very attractive person in both the candid and pre-dye pictures. It is interesting and sad that her presentation even needs to be a part of the conversation, but less interesting to me than her being a 30-year-old billionaire heading a presumably evil corporation.

Are our social norms on presentation of CEOs being directly transferred from the social norms we've learned for supervillains from movies? Female supervillains need to be hot or old, male supervilliains either ugly or European.

146: I'll be in my bunk.


Posted by: dalriata | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 10:35 AM
horizontal rule
156

149: I read 26 the way that he put it in 148. Not saying you're totally wrong about certain tendencies KR generally has.


Posted by: Bostoniangirl | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 10:36 AM
horizontal rule
157

151: I saw those. I just thought my response was more fun.

Anyway, Zuckerberg himself may have had fun with hoodies, in part because it played up his I'm-the-youngest-richest!, but my father-in-law gets plenty gussied up for his photos that appear in trade magazines or whatever. My parents joke that Jammies' parents look like a Viagra commercial.

Also, one of your "candid" photos is the same photo as from the first link in the OP, which wasn't included to display her grodiness. To me, the gap between her candid photos and her professional headshot is pretty bog standard, and we're only discussing this because we can't see her nipples.


Posted by: heebie-geebie | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 10:38 AM
horizontal rule
158

156: Yeah, but 148 was still bullshit. The problem with 26 was only partially that it was an unnecessary insult to a professionally accomplished woman for not being a supermodel (and for fraudulently claiming to be prettier than Knecht knows she really is). The reading in 148, that if you see a woman in public, it is always and inevitably relevant and interesting to whatever she's doing to focus on what her hair and clothes really mean, is independently something that makes life hard for women who are visible in public.

This particular woman is an evil billionaire, I guess, so I'm not shedding any tears on her behalf. But boy it's wearisome to listen to.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 10:40 AM
horizontal rule
159

She's still, in my opinion, a very attractive Visitor in both the candid and pre-dye pictures.


Posted by: snarkout | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 10:41 AM
horizontal rule
160

My parents joke that Jammies' parents look like a Viagra commercial.

I'm going to assume this is because of constant trouser-tenting.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 10:41 AM
horizontal rule
161

a professionally polished look, on a young, attractive woman, isn't all that different from a glamorous look

When I first realized this I had a very clear "Huh. We really do rule the world" moment.


Posted by: dalriata | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 10:41 AM
horizontal rule
162

because we can't see her nipples

Maybe. Has anybody checked 4chan?


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 10:42 AM
horizontal rule
163

What do you mean 'we'?


Posted by: Opinionated Semite | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 10:43 AM
horizontal rule
164

Semites have special nipple-viewing powers?


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 10:44 AM
horizontal rule
165

my father-in-law gets plenty gussied up for his photos that appear in trade magazines or whatever

Most companies don't have a glamour shot of the CEO on the home page of their website. There's strategy at work here. And the strategy could be all of her devising, for all I know. But deliberate strategy it is, if my nose for these things is at all accurate, which I think it is.


Posted by: knecht ruprecht | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 10:45 AM
horizontal rule
166

By the way, happy (or whatever emotion is correct) Yom Kippur where applicable.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 10:45 AM
horizontal rule
167

I thought the issue with 26 was its revelation of a free-wheeling tendency to rate-n-rank without shame? Anyway, this study has probably been linked before (actual paper here), but some researchers found that physical attractiveness seems to matter more for men than for women doing pitches to VCs (women were generally less successful). I totally agree with 152.2, cf. all the "you have to wear makeup to look 'professional'" advice given to women.


Posted by: lurid keyaki | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 10:45 AM
horizontal rule
168

Most companies don't have a glamour shot of the CEO on the home page of their website.

Huh? Of course they do.


Posted by: heebie-geebie | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 10:45 AM
horizontal rule
169

By the way, happy (or whatever emotion is correct) Yom Kippur where applicable.

"Hungry".


Posted by: heebie-geebie | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 10:46 AM
horizontal rule
170

166: Jesus I'm a bad Jew. I didn't even realize it was tonight.


Posted by: Josh | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 10:46 AM
horizontal rule
171

Jesus,

I'm a bad Jew.

Love, Josh.


Posted by: heebie-geebie | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 10:47 AM
horizontal rule
172

They don't count as glamour shots if the CEO's aren't young women. Men visible in public are normal. Women visible in public are only doing so as part of a strategy.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 10:47 AM
horizontal rule
173

But deliberate strategy it is, if my nose for these things is at all accurate, which I think it is.

You're the one who also thought that Sarah Palin was deliberately dressing up as a porno librarian-type.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 10:48 AM
horizontal rule
174

166 and the Gigi thing are both because I've been reading Wikipedia instead of working. I was trying to sort out what happened in which war of whatever coalition.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 10:48 AM
horizontal rule
175

173: I think that is probably right. What else could she possibly be doing?


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 10:50 AM
horizontal rule
176

Huh? Of course they do.

Go down the list of the Fortune 500 companies and see how far you get before you find a picture of the CEO on the home page.


Posted by: knecht ruprecht | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 10:52 AM
horizontal rule
177


173: I never said that.


Posted by: knecht ruprecht | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 10:53 AM
horizontal rule
178

163: The mens. Straight mens. (Unless you really were talking about Judaiovision, then carry on.)

173: I sort of thought she was, too, but I'm willing to attribute that to sexism on my part.


Posted by: dalriata | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 10:54 AM
horizontal rule
179

That seems even less useful than trying to learn who, specifically, was fighting in which of the Napoleonic Wars.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 10:54 AM
horizontal rule
180

It took me until I got to the very first company.


Posted by: heebie-geebie | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 10:54 AM
horizontal rule
181

180 to 176, obv.


Posted by: heebie-geebie | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 10:55 AM
horizontal rule
182

179 to 176.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 10:55 AM
horizontal rule
183

I guess that was the board, and not the executive management, but the links are side-by-side.


Posted by: heebie-geebie | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 10:55 AM
horizontal rule
184

Given the purpose of Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement, a cheerful salutation is challenging. The most common I've heard is "Have an easy fast!'


Posted by: idp | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 10:55 AM
horizontal rule
185

Like everyone else, Moby, you've probably got Colette confused with George Sand. Or with "Cosette" from Les Miserables.

Also, the first article I linked equivocates but the paper abstract affirmatively states that "Investors prefer pitches presented by male entrepreneurs compared with pitches made by female entrepreneurs, even when the content of the pitch is the same. This effect is moderated by male physical attractiveness: attractive males were particularly persuasive, whereas physical attractiveness did not matter among female entrepreneurs." That last finding is kind of amazing to me.


Posted by: lurid keyaki | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 10:55 AM
horizontal rule
186

179: Napoleon, surely.


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 10:55 AM
horizontal rule
187

Sure, but he wasn't running France until the Third Coalition.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 10:58 AM
horizontal rule
188

177: Are you not remembering the conversation at all, or just contesting how I've characterized it? I'm not successfully locating it in the archives (can't think of unique enough search terms), but I recall it clearly.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 10:59 AM
horizontal rule
189

185.1: Possibly. I've never read or seen Les Mis, but it's in the air.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 10:59 AM
horizontal rule
190

I thought the post was referring to Dr. Everett Koop, and spend a minute looking for him on the board of directors website. However Wikipedia now tells me that he died last year.


Posted by: arthropod | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 11:00 AM
horizontal rule
191

a) That's not a glamour shot. b) The website looks more like a website for a promising startup, not a website for a Fortune 500 company. No one needs to know who's on the board of a Fortune 500 company to see if they're a real company or not.


Posted by: Disingenuous Bastard | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 11:02 AM
horizontal rule
192

180: The homepage, heebie. She's on the home page. The About Us page of a company website is a different story.

188: Contesting how you are characterizing it.


Posted by: knecht ruprecht | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 11:06 AM
horizontal rule
193

Max is right, though. I hinted at that conclusion in 451, but max was less circumspect. I don't hold it against her, and I suspect that it probably helps her more than it hurts her in the country as a whole, but her look is uncannily like the librarian/secretary/teacher in every porn flick just before she gets her kit off. I don't know how to put a pretty face on it. It's just so.


Posted by: Mr. Blandings | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 11:06 AM
horizontal rule
194

Oh, thanks. And this:

Cala, I can't articulate why, but the simple juxtaposition of these ingredients does not a porn trope make. Palin's getup has that certain je ne sais quoi that unfailingly evokes a stock character from early 1990s feature-length porn. I'm not suggesting the Dems promote this meme, I'm just stating it as fact (or, more precisely, concurring with max). If you can't see it, you haven't watched enough of the relevant genre.

In Knecht's defense, he does not explicitly say that she was doing it deliberately.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 11:10 AM
horizontal rule
195

She's on the home page.

She is? I guess there's a link to an interview with her toward the bottom, but the picture is grayed-out and not very prominent.


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 11:10 AM
horizontal rule
196

Shire is a very large pharma company.


Posted by: SP | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 11:11 AM
horizontal rule
197

I also did exactly 190.


Posted by: dalriata | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 11:11 AM
horizontal rule
198

On closer inspection, there's a series of links to media coverage at the bottom, most of which have thumbnail pictures with her in them. Nevertheless, still not very prominent.


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 11:11 AM
horizontal rule
199

192: What Teo said in 195.


Posted by: heebie-geebie | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 11:13 AM
horizontal rule
200

196 to 113.


Posted by: dalriata | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 11:14 AM
horizontal rule
201

Nevertheless, still not very prominent.

I obviously have no inside knowledge of the company, but I have spent enough time around people who do "brand and visual identity consulting" for a living to know when to recognize when something isn't accidental.


Posted by: knecht ruprecht | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 11:14 AM
horizontal rule
202

By the way, happy (or whatever emotion is correct) Yom Kippur where applicable.

Oh hm yeah I once, back in the days when I was dragged to services, says "gut yontif" which means "happy holiday" and which you say for most things, and someone laughed and corrected me. I think you can still say "chag sameach" which means..."have a sandwich." It doesn't mean that, but I don't know what it means and I think "have a sandwich" is a perfectly nice thing to say to someone who is not eating because god is mad at them.


Posted by: Mister Smearcase | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 11:16 AM
horizontal rule
203

I'm enjoying the ambiguity in whether 201 is defending Holmes' curated presence on the front page of the website or Palin's porno-library-hottiness.


Posted by: heebie-geebie | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 11:16 AM
horizontal rule
204

202: "Chag Sameach" means the same thing as "Gut Yontif," but in Hebrew rather than Yiddish.


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 11:19 AM
horizontal rule
205

201: So, what exactly about the home page and the pictures thereon (is she the one on the left in the link at the bottom? It's too small for me to be sure) "isn't accidental"? I'm looking at the only thing on that page that might be a picture of her, and I have to say that I'm not blown away by the prominently displayed feminine pulchritude.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 11:20 AM
horizontal rule
206


203: The former. As LB graciously acknowledges, I never claimed Palin was deliberately mimicking a porn trope.


Posted by: knecht ruprecht | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 11:21 AM
horizontal rule
207

Indeed, what you said speaks for itself.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 11:22 AM
horizontal rule
208

"chag sameach" is Hebrew and translates as "happy holiday"

"gut yontif" is yiddish, and I don't know yiddish, but my guess is "have a good "good day"" - in which "good day" is how you say holiday.

The correct thing to say to Jews on Yom Kippur is "I forgive you for all your wrongdoings to me during the last year, and may all your other sins be forgiven as well."

If you don't actually forgive the person, then I suggest avoiding them around Yom Kippur.


Posted by: peep | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 11:23 AM
horizontal rule
209

Ol' knipples ruprecht is backpeddling mightily.


Posted by: heebie-geebie | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 11:24 AM
horizontal rule
210

208.3: Can we list the wrongdoings in the process?


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 11:24 AM
horizontal rule
211

But luckily, I forgive knipples for all his wrongdoings to me during the last year, and may all his other sins be forgiven as well.


Posted by: heebie-geebie | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 11:25 AM
horizontal rule
212

209: Backpeddling? Not in the least!

(BTW, the k in my pseud is not silent.)

I need to withdraw from the fray here to attend to an approaching deadline. Perhaps Halford can say something trollish and keep the ball rolling here.


Posted by: knecht ruprecht | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 11:27 AM
horizontal rule
213

"gut yontif" is yiddish, and I don't know yiddish, but my guess is "have a good "good day"" - in which "good day" is how you say holiday.

That is correct.


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 11:27 AM
horizontal rule
214

(BTW, the k in my pseud is not silent.)

Kanipples.


Posted by: heebie-geebie | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 11:28 AM
horizontal rule
215

193: Ah yes, that mess of a thread. A nugget from tripp's meltdown towards the end of the thread:

With Ogged gone I think it is fair to say the community standards (whatever that means) of this blog have shifted to the feminist viewpoint, which is fine, but I think the blog description should be updated to reflect this change.

But now that ogged is back, I guess we no longer need the update.


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 11:34 AM
horizontal rule
216

212: Because I do love the last word, knecht -- the comment Blandings quotes opens with "Max is right, though." Let's scroll up to see what Max was right about:

Personally, I have been avoiding the whole 'she's a woman' thing. It has been bugging me all week, from the first picture I saw of her: 'She looks like....She looks like...huh. She looks like...hrmmm.' However, it finally connected when I watched the speech, and calling her a Heather is not the right description. She looks like a porn star. [Thus the joke.] The fake glasses, the affected bun, the slightly off taste in suits, the possible surgery, and the biggest thing of all, the fake tan (in Alaska?!). Straight out of every fuck loop ever made involving a 'teacher'. Or straight off the Fox News desk.

Kay Bailey Hutchinson does not look like a porn star. Or a Fox News anchor.

And she knows what she looks like; the glasses are fine tuning to allow her to get away with the tan. In turn, her appearance is exactly why McCain picked her, and why most women seem to hate her, unless they buy into the whole 'she's a good Christian woman' act. Which is going to come apart at the seams when the affairs start coming out.

Just to clarify why I might have thought that you were saying she was deliberately dressing as a porn librarian.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 11:35 AM
horizontal rule
217

215: We are still claiming to be interested in golf. I suppose someone here might be, but I've never seen much evidence of it.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 11:37 AM
horizontal rule
218

Jammies is off playing golf right this very minute.


Posted by: heebie-geebie | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 11:38 AM
horizontal rule
219

Maybe he could come back and give us a report from the feminist viewpoint.


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 11:39 AM
horizontal rule
220

"gut yontif" is yiddish, and I don't know yiddish, but my guess is "have a good "good day""

I've always understood "yontif" to be a Yiddish, relaxed derivation from the Hebrew, "Yom Tov," which does mean "good day." Yom is day, as Yom Kippur is the Day of Atonement and Tov is good, as in Mazel Tov, good luck.

So Gut Yontif!, which may be said on any holiday but probably most on this one, does mean "good good day."


Posted by: idp | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 11:46 AM
horizontal rule
221

Can we list the wrongdoings in the process?

You are confusing Yom Kippur with Festivus.


Posted by: Mister Smearcase | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 11:46 AM
horizontal rule
222

It's hard to keep the different Jewish holidays straight.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 11:47 AM
horizontal rule
223

You're supposed to pronounce the 'k' in kvetch.


Posted by: heebie-geebie | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 11:48 AM
horizontal rule
224

I always want to wish my Jewish friends an atoneful Yom Kippur, but I fear it's in bad taste.


Posted by: JRoth | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 11:50 AM
horizontal rule
225

"Given all the shit you've pulled on me in the past year...."


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 11:52 AM
horizontal rule
226

Most companies don't have a glamour shot of the CEO . . .

Okay, out of curiosity, I looked up the photos of the management team for the company that Bruce Shneier is involved with. Would you say that those are glamor shots? They've clearly had a photographer take pictures of everybody with a consistent background and lighting, and the people that have hair have clearly had their hair done . . .


Posted by: NickS | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 11:53 AM
horizontal rule
227

226: What? It looks like they went out of their way to achieve the "passport photo" look.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 11:56 AM
horizontal rule
228

I feel like that's an effort to crate a taxonomy of rugged middle-aged men.


Posted by: Von Wafer | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 11:58 AM
horizontal rule
229

Now let's rummage up some candids of these shlubs and rank how well they clean up.


Posted by: heebie-geebie | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 12:00 PM
horizontal rule
230

At least three of those guys have their eyes squinted in such a way that it looks like they are trying to appear dishonest, which I guess might be a good way to get in good with Wall Street.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 12:00 PM
horizontal rule
231

The VP of Sales is trying too hard to appear honest.


Posted by: Eggplant | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 12:03 PM
horizontal rule
232

a porn librarian.

I love the ambiguity of that designation.


Posted by: AcademicLurker | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 12:06 PM
horizontal rule
233

I'm off the blog now for about thirty hours.

Gut Yontiff, everyone.


Posted by: idp | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 12:09 PM
horizontal rule
234

Have an easy fast.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 12:09 PM
horizontal rule
235

I would somewhat more happily go to an atonal Yom Kippur service than a regular one.


Posted by: Mister Smearcase | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 12:11 PM
horizontal rule
236

You could probably find a place with a shitty cantor.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 12:11 PM
horizontal rule
237

The CEO is totally giving duck face.


Posted by: jms | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 12:13 PM
horizontal rule
238

Have a fast fast.


Posted by: heebie-geebie | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 12:13 PM
horizontal rule
239

I just realized the confusion about where Knecht was seeing the picture of Holmes: It's not on theranos.com, it's on the page Ogged linked, which is the "Our Mission/Our Company" link from the front page.

The equivalent page* at Walmart is this one, which does not feature any executives. The Our Story page, 2 clicks in, does feature the current CEO as well as ol' Sam. The CEO is talking at a conference, not photographed formally or in a tie (or a decent suit, from the looks of it).

No executives on the comparable page at Exxon.

Not going to take a position on any of this, just trying to get everyone talking about the same things.

*by which I mean, the first non-retail link available on the home page


Posted by: JRoth | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 12:14 PM
horizontal rule
240

John Cage is the best cantor.


Posted by: Von Wafer | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 12:15 PM
horizontal rule
241

I almost always look terrible in photos, more washed out than I do in real life. Plus, in real life I can pretend that the hair on the back of my head is more groomed than it really is.


Posted by: Bostoniangirl | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 12:18 PM
horizontal rule
242

Are you sure you linked to the right Exxon page? Anyway, there are plenty of Exxon glamour shots easy-to-find here, and if we're actually debating which link from the front page one has to follow to find the glamour shots, then this is a very silly argument.


Posted by: heebie-geebie | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 12:19 PM
horizontal rule
243

241: me too. Just avoid mirrors facing each other.


Posted by: dalriata | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 12:19 PM
horizontal rule
244

242: I like the background for Michael Dolan's the best. It's kind of cozy. Mark Albers is less warm and fuzzy to me because of the windows. The gray backgrounds of all the other pictures just seem depressing. That's probably, because it's pretty dreary outside right now.

Our electricity rates are about to go up 37%. I know that I should be conserving more, but it is hard for me not to have lots of lights on during the winter.


Posted by: Bostoniangirl | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 12:25 PM
horizontal rule
245

Everybody's investor relations page will have photos of the execs. (Well, no, not everybody's, though it's more standard in Europe than here.) I also agree that she appears more than usually curated for hotness, but that's probably a combination of deliberately wanting her to look extra good because she's so young and innovative (and rich!) and that she may well want to herself and has the money to do things up properly, etc.


Posted by: Thorn | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 12:48 PM
horizontal rule
246

Still don't underrate the "she just looks like that" factor. in the context of what professional appearance norms are for women.

I mean, obviously, she, like every other executive who we've linked a picture of, is expensively and professionally groomed to present an image that they think will benefit their company. But for a pretty young woman (which, pace Knecht, she is) there really isn't an image of "professional but not hot" to aim for. She could aim for wacky or scruffy scientist, or she could aim for theatrically severe, but if the look she wants is ordinary professional, it's going to end up looking glamorous on her.

(I feel that I may be giving the impression that there would be something wrong if she were dressing and grooming herself to look pretty. In fact, no, there's not a thing wrong with that. All of my irritation in this thread has been about the fact that there is no image she could possibly have presented that wouldn't have been subject to this sort of analysis, whereas if she were a man, no one would care what she looked like absent genuine weirdness. It's like Jessica Valenti being unable to pose in a group picture with Bill Clinton without being accused of culpably having tits.)


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 1:15 PM
horizontal rule
247

I feel like we need a knechtel test.


Posted by: Eggplant | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 1:17 PM
horizontal rule
248

How did I miss this? Children, that's how. It seems knecht said two things: 1) she's pretty average, they really dolled her up! and 2) we still live in a world where even the CEO, if she's a woman, has to sell with looks.

1 wrong, 2 right, no?

And of course Palin knows she looks like a porn librarian? Was this seriously a discussion? The former pageant queen? Miss "I may be broke, but I'm not flat busted"? I'm not going to click through or discuss it, but if you say I'm wrong, at least I can shake my head offline with the bros.


Posted by: ogged | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 1:20 PM
horizontal rule
249

I am actually being sociable! I am down by the group cabana, reading unfogged.


Posted by: heebie-geebie | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 1:20 PM
horizontal rule
250

246.3 is fair and I don't mean to fault her for looking hot-for-a-CEO or whatever. I don't spend a ton of time looking at startups' websites, but I don't think there's any way to look at this page and not read it as presenting her as The Company and thus what you're buying into. No other employees are listed. No one else is pictured. (No one has even bothered to decide not to use an Oxford comma for a list of two items.) She's just there with her arresting blue eyes and carefully tousled hair, which again no shade intended, because she is what the company has to offer right now. And I do think portraying her that way is a deliberate strategy. They're playing up her youth as well as her competence and how she's photographed and presented is part of that strategy.


Posted by: Thorn | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 1:21 PM
horizontal rule
251

242:There are two parts of the discussion. One is whether the corporate photos are "glamour shots" (which is probably pointless), the other is how prominent the CEO is. In the case of Theranos, she's one click deep. To get to the page you linked from exxon.com, you have to click 3 times*. So no, Andrew P Swiger (I have no clue why he's first on the page, he's just a SVP and PFO) is not the face of Exxon in the way that Holmes is the face of Theranos.

Chevron, Microsoft, Apple - none of them show a CEO type on their first corporate (as opposed to consumer-facing) page. Now a lot of that is that they're large, diverse companies, and Theranos is not. I have no idea what would be a more comparable company to look at (pre-IPO FB might have been a good one).

*again, if you're not hunting for the corporate officers page; Holmes is on the Mission page, not the "Here are pictures of our Board" page. Exxon=>corporate.exxonmobil=>About Us=>Management


Posted by: JRoth | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 1:21 PM
horizontal rule
252

226 doesn't seem to fit with 246.2. Unless it does, in which case I'm an asshole.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 1:22 PM
horizontal rule
253

252: I'm not going to say you're an asshole for it, but I will bet that the dudes linked in 226 don't look anything like that good in person, and that some real effort went in to making them look like that.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 1:27 PM
horizontal rule
254

253: Now you're just being insulting, LB.


Posted by: JRoth | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 1:30 PM
horizontal rule
255

251 is ridiculous. Exxon is not a baby startup. Their websites not being perfectly parallel doesn't make anything a phenomenon.


Posted by: heebie-geebie | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 1:31 PM
horizontal rule
256

254: wait till you see 255!


Posted by: heebie-geebie | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 1:31 PM
horizontal rule
257

253 is what I was trying not to say explicitly.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 1:37 PM
horizontal rule
258

And because I'm contractually obligated to disagree with LB (it's a condition of my return), this "professional for a woman is indistinguishable from glam," 1) is coming from someone who admitted recently that she couldn't read the signifiers in profile pictures and 2) even if we grant it as a general proposition, isn't true in this case, since Holmes has clearly (and self-consciously) adopted the Jobsian black turtleneck uniform--that's not just looking professional; it's aiming for a very specific image (it may also be her "fuck you" to the pressure to always look good and have her looks dissected, by saying, "Just like Jobs. I dare you to say something.")


Posted by: ogged | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 1:39 PM
horizontal rule
259

So she is being super glam while also wearing a black turtleneck signifying that she's thumbing her nose.


Posted by: heebie-geebie | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 1:41 PM
horizontal rule
260

The very important distinction between what she's wearing and the "Jobsian uniform" is that she isn't wearing dad jeans. Or sneakers. Also she's wearing a jacket in those pictures. The black turtleneck is the only similarity. At no point does she approach the weird casualness of Jobs.


Posted by: dalriata | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 1:43 PM
horizontal rule
261

I'd certainly agree that as a startup, Theranos is presenting its founder as the face of the company; I'd expect that's pretty common for startups, but I don't have a list of startup websites to look at.

the depressing thought that somewhere along the way, one of her advisors (or she herself) determined that "hot blonde"* needed to become a core pillar of her "personal brand", the better to generate buzz for the enterprise.

This is what I was pushing back against -- that a pretty woman isn't allowed to be visible in public without "depressing" people with the the thought that the only reason she'd be visible in public being all pretty and female was to manipulate people with her appearance. If Holmes, looking like she does, is going to be visible in public being well groomed, people will think she's pretty. That doesn't make her face a media strategy, other than in the sense that any executive's personal appearance is the part of their media strategy.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 1:43 PM
horizontal rule
262

I'm on LB's side, except that in addition to being "well groomed", being the public face of the company means she becomes blonde. Or maybe she changes her hair color all the time, who knows.


Posted by: Cryptic ned | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 1:45 PM
horizontal rule
263

Wait, you think she's dressed up to look specifically like Steve Jobs? In the pictures linked in 26?

What the fuck are you smoking?


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 1:45 PM
horizontal rule
264

251 would be more ridiculous if it didn't include the critique embodied in 255 right in its text.

Jobs-era Apple would certainly be a company that might benefit from putting its CEO front and center on its corporate page, but I bet they didn't.

258: I did think the claim that a black turtleneck is unsignifying corporate wear was a bit of a stretch.


Posted by: JRoth | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 1:46 PM
horizontal rule
265

262: About a third of the women in America dye their hair blonde. (No idea of the numbers, but it's a lot. For an adult to be really blonde is pretty rare; 90% of the blonde women you see are dyeing it.) I don't think that needs any explanation at all.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 1:47 PM
horizontal rule
266

What do you want from me, I'm lounging by a cabana. Oiled bodies ahoy.


Posted by: heebie-geebie | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 1:48 PM
horizontal rule
267

264.last: One of my points throughout this is that there isn't unsignifying corporate-wear for a woman. There is literally nothing that means what a conservative suit, shirt, and tie do for a man (that is, just "I am a business-person dressed business-formally"). A woman's suit is sexy, or severe, or schoolmarmish, or mannish, but people determined to dissect women's choices won't let it be just a suit.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 1:50 PM
horizontal rule
268

That doesn't make her face a media strategy

We're not going to settle this without access to her emails with her publicists or confidantes, but I've been part of conversations with attractive young women going to business meetings where playing the "pretty young thing" card has been explicitly acknowledged. Obviously it happens. If you want to say that even mentioning that its happening makes the world a worse place, I guess we can have that discussion.


Posted by: ogged | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 1:50 PM
horizontal rule
269

I would go so far as to say that most women color their hair, period. Maybe not blond necessarily, but they get the gray out, or add highlights, or whatever.


Posted by: heebie-geebie | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 1:50 PM
horizontal rule
270

263: I agree. She's obviously dressing to look like Steve Wozniak.


Posted by: AcademicLurker | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 1:51 PM
horizontal rule
271

268: yeah but using an innocuous photo as a launching point for that conversation is a stretch.


Posted by: heebie-geebie | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 1:51 PM
horizontal rule
272

Jesus fuck, Ogged. Yes, the fact that you've met women who have flirted in business contexts means that while no one cares what the fuck a man looks like, it is always vital to be depressed by the perfidy revealed when women are attractive in public.

What on earth point are you trying to make?


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 1:53 PM
horizontal rule
273

you think she's dressed up to look specifically like Steve Jobs?

From what I gather, she has adopted the black turtleneck as a uniform (that was in one of the write-ups; maybe it's not true). You can't be the face of a high-profile startup, dress like that, and not intend to invoke, in some way, Steve Jobs.


Posted by: ogged | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 1:53 PM
horizontal rule
274

(Breathing deeply, resolving to say fuck less often.)


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 1:53 PM
horizontal rule
275

I wonder if any women go out dressed as "Slutty Steve Jobs" on Halloween.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 1:58 PM
horizontal rule
276

273: At which point, so? I mean, I really don't see it. The jacket over it makes it a completely different look to me.

If black turtlenecks are a uniform for her, it easily might be a way to finesse the neckline problem. Too low, and Knecht's going to get sad about how she's selling her business with sex. Higher can look dowdy, but a turtleneck looks a little funky? bohemian? (which I guess could be a Jobs kind of thing.)


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 1:59 PM
horizontal rule
277

I don't see it. Steve Jobs had a very specific uniform - black mock turtleneck (which is totally different from a turtleneck!), blue jeans, and New Balance sneakers. This woman looks like she's just wearing all black and trying to be as covered-up as possible, with a black fleece and long black skirt (or possibly loose pants).


Posted by: jms | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 1:59 PM
horizontal rule
278

I'm just trying to argue the other side of whatever point you're trying to make, obviously. I think you want to say something like: realize that you're projecting when you comment on a public woman's appearance, because there's no neutral way for a woman to appear in public, and I'm saying yes, that's true, and Holmes is pretty clearly trying to control the impression she leaves, going beyond "competent and professional" to "mythical founder."


Posted by: ogged | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 1:59 PM
horizontal rule
279

275: It's the Slutty Bill Gateses you really have to watch out for.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 2:00 PM
horizontal rule
280

I would go so far as to say that most women color their hair, period.

Yeah, lots and lots of women I work with have been variously blonde and not without it implying a corporate strategy.


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 2:00 PM
horizontal rule
281

Go ask them if their hair is dyed. Hurry. People are heading out the door now.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 2:02 PM
horizontal rule
282

261
I'd certainly agree that as a startup, Theranos is presenting its founder as the face of the company; I'd expect that's pretty common for startups, but I don't have a list of startup websites to look at.

Anecdata: a tech startup I'm kinda friends-of-friends with the founders of requires two clicks to find out what they look like, and then you have to watch an embedded video clip of a news report. So she's certainly more the face of her company than they're the face of theirs. And they're your more conventional geeks: socially maladjusted 30-something men in academia.

But then, their company has a terrible Web site in several ways, which I feel guilty about because I meant to offer to edit it for them and never got around to it. So maybe they actually should be more the face of their company just like she's more the face of hers.


Posted by: Cyrus | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 2:03 PM
horizontal rule
283

275: It's been done. Only slutty Bill Gates were variants on this, which it's safe to say is definitely a CEO glamour shot.


Posted by: dalriata | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 2:06 PM
horizontal rule
284

Pardon me, I have to go prepare food for the soul-sucking, mewling creatures the world calls my children, so that they can throw it on the floor and say they want pizza.


Posted by: ogged | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 2:08 PM
horizontal rule
285

283.1: I was thinking a thinner turtleneck.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 2:10 PM
horizontal rule
286

resolving to say fuck less often

Whoa, whoa, everyone settle down.


Posted by: JRoth | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 2:14 PM
horizontal rule
287

I went on a date once with a slutty Bill Gates, but I had to keep rebooting it [I'm happy to say that it's been so long since I've been on a Windows box that the better, dorkier jokes are eluding me]..


Posted by: JRoth | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 2:16 PM
horizontal rule
288

Dude. I had a meeting with slutty Bill Gates, but he wouldn't stop going down on me.

Back to dinner...


Posted by: ogged | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 2:27 PM
horizontal rule
289

||

I timed "being social" to give me about 45 minutes of small talk before Jammies and the golfing crew got back. Jammies just texted that he's drunk and passed out in our room, goddamn it. So now I'm stuck in smalltalkville or I can plead pregnant, I guess, but sheesh.

|>


Posted by: heebie-geebie | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 2:33 PM
horizontal rule
290

I tried making out with slutty Billy Gates, but he froze up when I did two things at once.


Posted by: dalriata | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 2:35 PM
horizontal rule
291

289, 290: Problems you had with Windows 3.1 is always good small talk.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 2:37 PM
horizontal rule
292

Heebie, I don't know how to tell you this, but your husband is almost certainly not passed out if he's texting you.


Posted by: JRoth | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 2:38 PM
horizontal rule
293

I tried making out with slutty Windows 8.0, but I didn't know where to start.


Posted by: dalriata | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 2:42 PM
horizontal rule
294

I assumed that he texted and then passed out. Evidence for the latter being no response to "get down here you lush" texts from her.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 2:42 PM
horizontal rule
295

I exited and am now back in my room, where Jammies is definitely passed out.


Posted by: heebie-geebie | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 2:53 PM
horizontal rule
296

You are legally obligated to draw dicks on his face and post a picture to the internet.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 2:55 PM
horizontal rule
297

I've seen candids of the Sock Club guys and let me tell you. . . https://www.sockclub.com/about


Posted by: | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 3:01 PM
horizontal rule
298

I'm going to assume that's spam.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 3:07 PM
horizontal rule
299

Haven't not really caught up, some evidence for ogged's points above as I understand them (if I'm wrong about his points and he's just being a jerk, ignore me): naive observers are able to guess corporate success from nothing but pictures of the CEO's face (female or male). Obviously (as she isn't dumb) the Theranos woman (and her presumably very expensive stylists and photographers) is very aware that this happens -- so are male CEOs, and the "neutral" business outfit is pretty much a myth.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 3:28 PM
horizontal rule
300

Hm, possibly I'm agreeing with everybody. Okay! This woman is being positioned in a very specific way with regards to her look and visibility, and so is every other CEO of a successful company. That this is being done, for Theranos, in a fashion that gets leverage from sexist norms seems obvious, and seems like it would almost be malpractice, from the investor point of view, if it wasn't happening. It also isn't Knecht's fault, necessarily, although it may be.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 3:35 PM
horizontal rule
301

I've got nothing to disagree with there, except to say that the following "That this is being done, for Theranos, in a fashion that gets leverage from sexist norms seems obvious" should be phrased as "is pretty much inevitable/inescapable" -- once you're starting from Holmes as raw material, any plausible CEO-type image for her is going to come across as attractive.

What drove me into a frenzy of froth-spewing rage was Knecht's "Isn't it a pity that she felt like she had to harlot herself up like that, not that I'm judging the poor dear" routine. (Note to careless readers -- not actual quotes from Knecht). Like any CEO, she's got a professionally maintained public image; given her demographic and appearance, that image going to be pretty much inevitably that of an attractive woman.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 3:50 PM
horizontal rule
302

253: I find that a not-particularly-flattering picture of Schneier; if I know the other guys I've only seen them in peculiar hackercamp clothes, hard to judge. No! I have judginess! They should either wear ties or choose shirts with different collars: the unbuttoned button-down looks dumb by daylight.

physical attractiveness did not matter among female entrepreneurs

I bet it isn't linear, anyway. Not only is there no room between `groomed' and `glamourous', there's no room between `glamourous' and `slutty' and tastes vary and no-one gives power to women who they think look slutty. Different online board had an increasingly depressing week of discussion about how, for women who were busty or anything but lily-white, some people can't see anything between `ungroomed' and `slutty'. Serious HR-complaint-level can't see a difference, for women wearing granny bras and turtlenecks and skirts past the knee. I think V here is running as close to severe as possible without looking fetish-y, which is an understandable tactic for a young woman.

Also, she isn't a hot blonde. She's a cool blonde. She may also be hot, de gustibus, but the style is cool.


Posted by: clew | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 4:55 PM
horizontal rule
303

I don't think "groomed" or "glamorous" are really the right vectors. What screws female corporate types, arguably, is that their self-presentation gets discussed along vectors of attractiveness where really, for any CEO, that is going to get subsumed into different aspects of personality. So the human-mimicking alien at issue here is trying to look attractive only incidentally -- ogged's "mythic founder" phrasing had it right.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 5:00 PM
horizontal rule
304

Neither here nor there, but the original post is really a marvel of online writing. Compact, efficient, good use of links, even a punch line. (Not to mention, except parenthetically, spurring 300+ comments.) I tip my hat.


Posted by: k-sky | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 5:01 PM
horizontal rule
305

302.1: Plus, their heads are shiny.

Anyway, if it makes you feel better, I'm using all of the time I've saved by not worrying about my personal presentation to dig a trench in Minecraft. It goes from the top of the ground to the bedrock and so far crosses two biomes.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 5:03 PM
horizontal rule
306

I'm going to use all the rock to pave the Nether because the lava annoys me.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 5:06 PM
horizontal rule
307

Seconding LizardBreath's analysis, also rage. Also:

My dad had a banker's glamour shot done every couple of years while he was in a bank. Very careful haircuts; grey temples desirable but posed to minimize jowls, wrinkles, stoop required. One of the photographers powdered his skin. Dark sharp suit. Not-too-aggressive tie. No pocket square (would be too dressy at his banks). I can't remember where these photos got used, but it was something the bank needed, they went somewhere.

Also, we get murmurs regularly about how Silicon Valley's philojuvenilia drives men to plastic surgery early and often.

I think 302.3 and 303 are saying some of the same thing.


Posted by: clew | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 5:07 PM
horizontal rule
308

-d but guess where


Posted by: clew | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 5:08 PM
horizontal rule
309

"powered his skin"


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 5:10 PM
horizontal rule
310

302: What kind of collars are considered appropriate for wearing unbuttoned? Asking for a friend.

305: How often in Minecraft I've set out with a real creative goal and then just virtually dig a trench. Depressing.


Posted by: dalriata | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 5:10 PM
horizontal rule
311

Probably something Freudian.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 5:13 PM
horizontal rule
312

What kind of collars are considered appropriate for wearing unbuttoned?

I think this is an open problem in men's clothes. That is, there are several collars meant to be open or at least tieless, but they don't read Business Formal to most of the US/UK yet; polos, the very sensible Philipino cut that I've forgotten the name of. Band collar shirts look good to me (maybe because one of my grandfathers decided in about 1925 to wear band collars and an odd crossover tie no longer seen anywhere but in Westerns. It's short; won't catch in machinery.)

Collars cut with enough structure to hold a tie rumple weirdly without one. Coder's hunch makes this worse, also I think makes ties and collars less comfortable. Women's shirts have started cutting very narrow Vs that only *look* like unbuttoned plackets, I suppose someone could do it for men's, I mentioned this to the CEO of Cutter & Buck once and got a politely neutral nod.


Posted by: clew | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 5:18 PM
horizontal rule
313

-d but guess where

I'm pretty sure that's going to cause an error


Posted by: L. | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 5:20 PM
horizontal rule
314

Clew gets it right in 302.


Posted by: L. | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 5:23 PM
horizontal rule
315

God fucking damnit, no one goes to the Exxon or Walmart website thinking "You know what's the best predictor of a company's future success? The people. So who are the PEOPLE at this company?"

This woman is 30 year old billionaire. She's a freaking unicorn. No one was saying Zuckerberg "needed" to wear a hoodie to do whatever the hell he was doing. All this insightful, knowing commentary about how women's appearances are judged is part of the problem, not the solution.


Posted by: Disingenuous Bastard | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 5:33 PM
horizontal rule
316

You want to explain that?


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 5:39 PM
horizontal rule
317

I hate those little half collar shirts. I had a professor who wore them a lot. They just made his neck look fat.


Posted by: Bostoniangirl | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 5:42 PM
horizontal rule
318

Me? Basically I'm on your side. The comments that this woman's company's website doesn't look like the websites for the world's biggest brands are ridiculous.


Posted by: Disingenuous Bastard | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 5:48 PM
horizontal rule
319

That makes sense.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 6:05 PM
horizontal rule
320

312 was informative and useful. I'm very lazy about how I wear my collars even though I can usually tell I'm getting them wrong. (And, hey, male privilege in tech that you can get away with looking kinda disheveled.) Thanks!


Posted by: dalriata | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 6:06 PM
horizontal rule
321

Don't let him off the hook, LB! Why is he even looking at you like that?!


Posted by: heebie-geebie | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 6:11 PM
horizontal rule
322

No one was saying Zuckerberg "needed" to wear a hoodie

Correct. They were saying he needed to dress up.


Posted by: ogged | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 6:12 PM
horizontal rule
323

original post is really a marvel of online writing

Hey, thanks. The new punchline? I had to check who wrote it.


Posted by: ogged | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 6:16 PM
horizontal rule
324

One of the biggest things to get used to when I started posting here is the brevity. Two sentences makes a paragraph. The formatting makes everything look longer than it is, and so the goal is just to be concise and get something up.


Posted by: heebie-geebie | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 6:25 PM
horizontal rule
325

But didn't Kevin Drum write about this yesterday? Sure. Actual thing. ogged is poaching.


Posted by: parsimon | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 6:30 PM
horizontal rule
326

Which is fine and all.


Posted by: parsimon | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 6:32 PM
horizontal rule
327

313: hah. and it generalizes.

317: Not just because the collar was too tight? A stand-and-points collar of the same size would have been better?

When looking at a panel or around a conference table it often strikes me that men's business clothes focus everything on their faces very well, while a lot of women's fashion doesn't -- independent of showing cleavage and looking sexy, I think open V-necks dilute the focus on the face. What did the Notorious RBG wear before elevation? ... off to google...


Posted by: clew | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 6:34 PM
horizontal rule
328

RBG's present-day bizarro collars are in a league of their own.


Posted by: redfoxtailshrub | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 6:37 PM
horizontal rule
329

I mostly get a particular radial net crochet collar and some rockin' jabots. Also, evidence that a lot of people really despise her. .

Early RBG; awww.


Posted by: clew | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 6:47 PM
horizontal rule
330

315: except, if you show people pictures of those companies' CEOs and ask them which company makes more money, they'll get it right.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 6:51 PM
horizontal rule
331

That doesn't generalize very well.


Posted by: dalriata | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 6:54 PM
horizontal rule
332

331 to ?


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 6:54 PM
horizontal rule
333

Gonna assume 324.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 6:57 PM
horizontal rule
334

I meant to you, sorry.


Posted by: dalriata | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 6:59 PM
horizontal rule
335

Oh, okay. In what sense doesn't it generalize well?


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 7:00 PM
horizontal rule
336

330: Is that this study (PDF)?

Everything about this article screams "throw random shit together and wait for some correlations to show up with asterisks next to them" to me, but I could be wrong.


Posted by: Disingenuous Bastard | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 7:06 PM
horizontal rule
337

Nothing deep, that people's predictions about which company is more profitable (assuming that you're defining this as just net profits, not profits as a ratio of revenue or capital) based on CEO appearance would be wrong. In particular Facebook against most traditional CEOs would fail (but not those particular ones, because they're truly mammoth companies).


Posted by: dalriata | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 7:06 PM
horizontal rule
338

336: it is! You are! (It replicates.)

337: maybe? Probably not? People turn out to be quite good at making these kinds of judgments, which if you ask me is because people are quite good at picking up on social cues like "hired the absolute most expensive photographer".


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 7:11 PM
horizontal rule
339

Following on 336, as far as I can tell the single result from that paper is that perceptions of CEO power (calculated as an average of perceptions of competence, dominance, and facial maturity) were correlated with the CEO company's actual profits, even after controlling for the age of the CEO and judgments about the CEO's affect and attractiveness. I mean, this is one statistically significant result coming out of a dozens of variables thrown together, and there's no reason to think it would hold up in another study. (Perceptions of power aren't even statistically significantly correlated with actual revenues in this study, but I'm sure people are observing subtle things about profit margins in people's jawlines.)


Posted by: Disingenuous Bastard | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 7:13 PM
horizontal rule
340

300-odd comments -- has anyone mentioned the annoying lack of parallel structure on the bios page? "Elizabeth" is referred to by her first name, as is one other person. "Dr. Kissinger" and "General __" are referred to with those titles. Neither former senator seems to be called Senator.

I don't know who their PR/communications person is, but that wouldn't fly at my company.


Posted by: Witt | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 7:16 PM
horizontal rule
341

Yeah, the correlation between ratings of competence and so on from face images and actual success in competitive scenarios (corporate success, but also electoral success for politicians) is actually quite robust and relatively easy to replicate. Which isn't actually that surprising, fundamentally, but anyhow.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 7:17 PM
horizontal rule
342

I guess I'll dig up the research at some point, but I just don't believe it, and it seems like the sort of thing that is open-ended enough that you can see it everywhere if you ignore when it doesn't hold. In this particular example, it's not competence that's being correlated with success, it's a combination of competence, dominance, *and* facial maturity (how convenient that the researchers have the flexibility to assemble this hybrid measure). And does it track CEO pay or just profits? How correlated is CEO pay with profits anyway -- is that something that you need some training to investigate empirically, or can people figure it out from pictures? Can people distinguish between CEOs and COOs and CFOs from pictures? etc etc


Posted by: Disingenuous Bastard | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 7:23 PM
horizontal rule
343

I kind of doubt the quality of photographer that Zuckerberg can afford and that the ExxonMobil guys can afford is that different?

At no point in that study did they actually ask the participants to rate which company made more money. They ask them a bunch of questions and then found a component of those questions that had medium positive correlation with profitability. Said component was much more strongly correlated with age.

The closest they came to directly asking was the leadership assessment ("How good would this person be at leading a company?") and that had only a small positive correlation (0.24 not controlling for age, attractiveness, etc.) that wasn't asterisked.

So...I think I'm not impressed with what this says about people's ability to judge CEOs' quality from appearance. Or I'm reading this wrong? (I don't read a lot of experimental psychology papers.)


Posted by: dalriata | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 7:23 PM
horizontal rule
344

That should be "perceived competence" not "competence"


Posted by: Disingenuous Bastard | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 7:23 PM
horizontal rule
345

That should be "perceived competence" not "competence"


Posted by: Disingenuous Bastard | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 7:23 PM
horizontal rule
346

Or what Disingenuous Bastard, who clearly is more knowledgable of this sort of thing than I am, said.


Posted by: dalriata | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 7:25 PM
horizontal rule
347

Since you both seem very interested in this topic, I encourage you to check out the review paper linked with the second link in 299, which contains several dozen references that might be apposite.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 7:25 PM
horizontal rule
348

I dunno, Sifu, I think double-posting signifies more competence to me. You might lose.


Posted by: Thorn | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 7:36 PM
horizontal rule
349

I should probably post a picture of my serious face.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 7:37 PM
horizontal rule
350

So I read that review paper (which was interesting!), and the only references it had to predicting corporate success was to the authors' own papers, namely the one in 336 and the corresponding one for female CEOs. (Yes, there were references to electoral success, which is more convincing to me.) I'm still not convinced that this says much impressive about people's ability to tell which company makes more money from just looking at the CEO.

And even if it did say that, that's not the same as the ability to judge company profitability relative to a baseline of size and sector. They aren't claiming this is going to tell you which companies are high growth, good investments, or particularly well-managed--just which companies are big. Which is unfortunate.


Posted by: dalriata | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 7:51 PM
horizontal rule
351

350: well, yeah, dude. They also couldn't tell you which CEO has a diaper fetish. But for Fortune 500 publicly-traded companies, "big" is a pretty okay synecdoche for "successful", and I would hope that the article would convince you that people are pretty good at predicting a whole range of instrumental variables for "successful" from face images alone, and that this would be enough to suspect that venture-funded companies which aspire to be "successful" or "big" would be very attuned indeed to presenting their founders in the fashion that would best elicit such judgments.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 7:59 PM
horizontal rule
352

this would be enough to suspect that venture-funded companies which aspire to be "successful" or "big" would be very attuned indeed to presenting their founders in the fashion that would best elicit such judgments.

Certainly based on my experience over the past week of looking at that sort of company, this is true. OTOH I'm not sure how you correct for the fact that, while they're all presenting their founders that way, they're also all following the same basic design template that's currently in vogue in web design.


Posted by: Josh | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 8:05 PM
horizontal rule
353

Some of these companies are so hip they picture their founders behind shitty mutant smiley faces so you can't even see their faces.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 8:08 PM
horizontal rule
354

They also couldn't tell you which CEO has a diaper fetish.

Can the fMRI do that yet?


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 8:08 PM
horizontal rule
355

351: Yeah, I guess the things I'm quibbling about are probably not that important and I'm misrepresenting the magnitude of the results.


Posted by: dalriata | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 8:15 PM
horizontal rule
356

353: I think it's safe to say I won't be trying to get a job with those guys.

Relevant to this thread, I was going to link to the company I talked to yesterday, but as it turns out their board of directors and management pages are both returning empty responses. I think if I hadn't already decided they're not the place for me that would have probably tipped me over the edge.


Posted by: Josh | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 8:42 PM
horizontal rule
357

Maybe this has already been pointed out, but the images at the bottom of the Theranos website are in a "carousel" and appear to all be links to various news and announcements. They probably have a feed of media mentions and press releases that runs in the background and then someone picks certain ones to highlight on the front page.

Just on a quick glance, it looks like most of the news and announcements items have a picture of the CEO because she appears in the thing linked in some way: it's an interview, promotional video, etc. But if you scroll through the carousel, you'll see things without her picture, such as a picture of William H. Foege, M.D., M.P.H, linked to an announcement of his appointment to the Board of Directors, and whatever you think of Foege's appearance, I think we can all agree that he's not a hot young blonde woman and yet he's on the front page (sort of). Does that mean they have a deliberate strategy to highlight a photo of an older man on the front page? Or is it just that his photo is the logical image to appear next to an announcement relating to him? I think it's the latter or I wouldn't have set up a pair of leading questions like that.

There's clearly a deliberate strategy to make the CEO the public face of the company - but that's not exactly an uncommon strategy - and there's a deliberate strategy to highlight the company in the news on the front page of the website. The combination has the effect of putting the CEO's picture on the front page, but if the strategy was to put her picture on the front page for the sake of putting her picture on the front page, I think the picture would be right up in your face instead of in the carousel just about the footer.


Posted by: fake accent | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 8:55 PM
horizontal rule
358

above


Posted by: fake accent | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 8:55 PM
horizontal rule
359

On the Palin thing, someone should do a content analysis of professions represented in porn. I suspect librarian would actually rank fairly low. The study would have the added benefit of allowing you to say you only watch porn for the professionals.


Posted by: fake accent | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 9:00 PM
horizontal rule
360

Following up on the Yom Kippur greeting subthread, at services tonight I heard several different variations, including both "Gut Yontiff" and "Chag Sameach" (much more of the former than the latter, interestingly), but the most common was "Shanah Tovah" ("Happy New Year"), which has the useful feature of referring to the season in general rather than this somber holiday in particular.


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 9:11 PM
horizontal rule
361

If "yontiff" supposed to rhyme with "pontiff"? Is this a secret papist plot?


Posted by: fake accent | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 9:14 PM
horizontal rule
362

It does rhyme with "pontiff," but the etymology is as given in 220 so the possibility of papist influence seems remote. It's actually often pronounced more like "yuntiff," anyway.


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 9:19 PM
horizontal rule
363

"L'shanah tovah" is for last week, dammit!


Posted by: Josh | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 9:23 PM
horizontal rule
364

Tell it to all the people at my mom's synagogue.


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 9:24 PM
horizontal rule
365

That would involve me going to services.


Posted by: Josh | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 9:31 PM
horizontal rule
366

It would also involve you traveling to Albuquerque, so yeah.


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 9:33 PM
horizontal rule
367

Guys, they probably have phones.


Posted by: Eggplant | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 9:34 PM
horizontal rule
368

I don't have their numbers, though. I guess I could send Josh the synagogue directory.


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 9:36 PM
horizontal rule
369

ROBOCALL


Posted by: fake accent | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 9:36 PM
horizontal rule
370

368: What a terrible son you are.


Posted by: Eggplant | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 9:39 PM
horizontal rule
371

What good Jew would answer the phone on Yom Kippur?


Posted by: Josh | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 9:40 PM
horizontal rule
372

370: And a bad Jew!


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 9:40 PM
horizontal rule
373

On the Palin thing

I'm going to have to throw in with team Ogged on this one. Of fucking course she knew.


Posted by: gswift | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 9:40 PM
horizontal rule
374

What good Jew would answer the phone on Yom Kippur?

The kind that would answer with "L'shanah tovah," of course.


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 9:41 PM
horizontal rule
375

I once got a misdirected, earnest apology via SMS on Yom Kippur. Also an extraordinary passive-aggressive email from an ex many years earlier; he may have been made woozy by the fasting? "I still care for you, even as you infuriate me" (we had not spoken for three years or something). I didn't respond because... boy.


Posted by: lurid keyaki | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 10:08 PM
horizontal rule
376

374+=awesome


Posted by: turgid jacobian | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 10:22 PM
horizontal rule
377

374+=awesome


Posted by: turgid jacobian | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 10:22 PM
horizontal rule
378

374+=awesome


Posted by: turgid jacobian | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 10:22 PM
horizontal rule
379

374+=awesome


Posted by: turgid jacobian | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 10:22 PM
horizontal rule
380

374+=awesome


Posted by: turgid jacobian | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 10:22 PM
horizontal rule
381

heebie - hope the eye is feeling better! Should be starting to have some relief by tomorrow morning.

Important Vegas tip, from brief trips there for business - avoid looking at the carpets. Truly dreadful.


Posted by: dairy queen | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 10:24 PM
horizontal rule
382

Uh, thanks, tj.


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 10:24 PM
horizontal rule
383

I don't think I've been to Vegas since I was a kid and I think I've been to Reno only once since I turned 18 and I still wasn't old enough to gamble or drink legally. Reno had a fun age-group swim meet every year that was timed to coincide with the end of the school year so lots of people used it as an excuse for a quick weekend + day or two vacation.


Posted by: fake accent | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 10:43 PM
horizontal rule
384

It's more efficient to write that as 374 += 5 * awesome.


Posted by: Walt Someguy | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 10:46 PM
horizontal rule
385

381: already today it felt waaay less painful. Amazing. Yesterday was one of the most miserable in recent memory, and today was basically fine, in comparison.


Posted by: heebie-geebie | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 10:54 PM
horizontal rule
386

He's going to post that comment every time someone in teo's mom's synagogue answers the phone.


Posted by: fake accent | Link to this comment | 10- 3-14 10:55 PM
horizontal rule
387

Sorry commenting from new phone.


Posted by: turgid jacobian | Link to this comment | 10- 4-14 4:38 AM
horizontal rule
388

I'm surprised that there hasn't been more attention in this thread to the shear overwhelming amount of pure evil concentrated in the company's board.

I mean, obviously they can't be doing something as innocuous as making a simpler blood test, right? Maybe the devices you stick yourself with are actually loaded to infect you with ebola and then the company makes you sell your family into indentured servitude in order to get the cure.

There's just no way that that list of people would be involved in something that wasn't awful somehow or other.


Posted by: AcademicLurker | Link to this comment | 10- 4-14 5:44 AM
horizontal rule
389

I love the idea that someone actively sought out Henry Kissinger for membership on the board. What motivates that kind of decision, I wonder? The man is nearly universally recognized as one of the greatest monsters of the twentieth century*, not to mention, he's very nearly dead. What's the point other than assembling a collection of cartoon villains? It's too bad Ariel Sharon's not still comatose; they could wheeled his hospital bed into the annual meetings.

* If you happened to be inured to Kissinger's oeuvre of evil, the new stuff that's come out suggesting that, had Ford been elected, the US would have gone to war with Cuba might bring you back to the man's glory days.


Posted by: Von Wafer | Link to this comment | 10- 4-14 6:04 AM
horizontal rule
390

Here's a link. Somebody get that man a seat on the board! He's an outta-the-box thinker!


Posted by: Von Wafer | Link to this comment | 10- 4-14 6:06 AM
horizontal rule
391

390: My favorite part of that article is that Kissinger apparently said he wanted to "clobber the pipsqueak". Who but a cartoon villain would use such a goofy set of words to talk about an actual war?


Posted by: essear | Link to this comment | 10- 4-14 6:13 AM
horizontal rule
392

Exactly. It's like he told himself that he was the Jewish Ben Grimm.


Posted by: Von Wafer | Link to this comment | 10- 4-14 6:27 AM
horizontal rule
393

If we had gone to war with Cuba, and won, interment on Guantanamo would have probably been more difficult if not impossible.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 10- 4-14 6:27 AM
horizontal rule
394

VW, objectively anti-civil rights.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 10- 4-14 6:28 AM
horizontal rule
395

I thought Ben Grimm was the Jewish Ben Grimm.


Posted by: essear | Link to this comment | 10- 4-14 6:37 AM
horizontal rule
396

Wikipedia says you're right!


Posted by: Von Wafer | Link to this comment | 10- 4-14 6:54 AM
horizontal rule
397

I thought I remembered that Kirby had consciously designed him to look like a golem, but Google just turns up people speculating that, so maybe Kirby never explicitly said it.


Posted by: essear | Link to this comment | 10- 4-14 7:12 AM
horizontal rule
398

I'm reading about Meadowcroft. The top layer, post-Columbian, was found to contain the highest concentration of Schlitz cans.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 10- 4-14 7:41 AM
horizontal rule
399

I wonder at what point in thinking through the Peace of Westphalia as a graduate student Henry Kissinger realized he would be on the board of a medical startup as a nonagenerian.


Posted by: Criminally Bulgur | Link to this comment | 10- 4-14 7:53 AM
horizontal rule
400

Mel Brooks is Jack Kirby was Jewish?!


Posted by: OPINIONATED HOMER SIMPSON | Link to this comment | 10- 4-14 7:54 AM
horizontal rule
401

Stupid close tag.


Posted by: Flippanter | Link to this comment | 10- 4-14 7:55 AM
horizontal rule
402

It's not just my imagination that his sort cling to life like Voldemort, living far longer than expected, right? I suspect frequent transfusions of the stem cell rich blood of infants.


Posted by: Eggplant | Link to this comment | 10- 4-14 8:06 AM
horizontal rule
403

Way to modernize the blood libel.


Posted by: essear | Link to this comment | 10- 4-14 8:14 AM
horizontal rule
404

351: But for Fortune 500 publicly-traded companies, "big" is a pretty okay synecdoche for "successful", and I would hope that the article would convince you that people are pretty good at predicting a whole range of instrumental variables for "successful" from face images alone, and that this would be enough to suspect that venture-funded companies which aspire to be "successful" or "big" would be very attuned indeed to presenting their founders in the fashion that would best elicit such judgments.

What? First, the article doesn't establish a statistically significant correlation between CEO face and company size (revenues), just company profits (why one and not the other?) Second, Fortune 500 companies are all already huge. This is like showing people pictures of Nolan Ryan, Randy Johnson, Billy Wagner, and Stephen Strasburg and expecting them to be able to figure out who has the fastest fastball and who's coming off surgery. Fortune 500 CEOs are already a ridiculously small selected group of people who have passed through a number of performance/appearance hurdles. Furthermore, predicting company profitability is difficult even if you know things like the company's track record, the industry they're in, and the general economic environment, so why on earth would CEO looks be a reliable predictor (as opposed to a spurious corrleation)?

I can't take the survey article in 299 seriously because there's no analysis of what facial studies *can't* predict. There are a million things that they *could* theoretically predict, so why is it surprising that people are able to publish a body of studies showing some positive correlations? Is it that academics don't have incentives to churn out publications with spuriously low p-values?


Posted by: Disingenuous Bastard | Link to this comment | 10- 4-14 8:15 AM
horizontal rule
405

404.last is so, so stupid, truly. But in a way where I clearly am not going to be able to make a dent so, okay, agree to disagree!


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 10- 4-14 8:19 AM
horizontal rule
406

Right, you've already put in so much work with "look, someone published an article in a journal" I mean, if that doesn't close the argument, what other possible tools could be at your disposal? It's not like no one's ever published statistical garbage in Psychological Science before!


Posted by: Disingenuous Bastard | Link to this comment | 10- 4-14 8:25 AM
horizontal rule
407

How is 404.last stupid? It could be wrong, but it's not like it's never happened before.


Posted by: Walt Someguy | Link to this comment | 10- 4-14 8:34 AM
horizontal rule
408

403: Right? But seriously, what do you think Dick Cheney would do with the existing scientific research showing the benefits?


Posted by: Eggplant | Link to this comment | 10- 4-14 8:34 AM
horizontal rule
409

Wait, first Ben Grimm and now Dick Cheney? My tribe grows bigger every day.


Posted by: Von Wafer | Link to this comment | 10- 4-14 8:37 AM
horizontal rule
410

After seeing the composition of the board, I think she ought to change the name of the company to SPECTRE, and appear at investor meetings stroking a white cat.


Posted by: AcademicLurker | Link to this comment | 10- 4-14 8:45 AM
horizontal rule
411

410: Surely a black cat, if she wants to keep the black turtlenecks.


Posted by: Cosma Shalizi | Link to this comment | 10- 4-14 10:20 AM
horizontal rule
412

A white cat before Labor Day, and a black one after.


Posted by: Walt Someguy | Link to this comment | 10- 4-14 10:31 AM
horizontal rule
413

A chimera cat engineered to be black on one side and cream on the other.


Posted by: clew | Link to this comment | 10- 4-14 11:17 AM
horizontal rule
414

Must I even say "Schroedinger"?


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 10- 4-14 11:21 AM
horizontal rule
415

She could wear nothing but cats.


Posted by: Eggplant | Link to this comment | 10- 4-14 11:25 AM
horizontal rule
416

I just want to say I fell into the world's biggest internet hole today reading about the Fleischmann's yeast fortune, the Fleischmann-Holmes family cabal, Christian Holmes' crazy Hawaii estate, Ambassador Genta Holmes, CEO Holmes's father's tenure at the EPA, acetaldehyde pollution from yeast factories, Oakland's old yeast factories, Nora Holmes and Congressmen Critz and Murtha, and Tenneco. It's all Ogged's fault, I am now convinced Dr. Evil is but the tip of the iceberg, and I am probably going to have nightmares invoking Nancy Kress's novel Oaths and Miracles b/c this sure seems like a an implementation of Cadaverico. If you don't hear from me for a while its b/c I gave up on society and moved off grid, or b/c the fucking Palantir got me.


Posted by: Ile | Link to this comment | 10- 7-14 12:54 AM
horizontal rule
417

I just want to say I fell into the world's biggest internet hole today reading about the Fleischmann's yeast fortune, the Fleischmann-Holmes family cabal, Christian Holmes' crazy Hawaii estate, Ambassador Genta Holmes, CEO Holmes's father's tenure at the EPA, acetaldehyde pollution from yeast factories, Oakland's old yeast factories, Nora Holmes and Congressmen Critz and Murtha, and Tenneco. It's all Ogged's fault, I am now convinced Dr. Evil is but the tip of the iceberg, and I am probably going to have nightmares invoking Nancy Kress's novel Oaths and Miracles b/c this sure seems like a an implementation of Cadaverico. If you don't hear from me for a while its b/c I gave up on society and moved off grid, or b/c the fucking Palantir got me.


Posted by: Ile | Link to this comment | 10- 7-14 12:54 AM
horizontal rule
418

The very rich are different from you and me: they're pure evil, whereas the rest of us are only partly evil.


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 10- 7-14 1:01 AM
horizontal rule
419

My dreams were *off the hook*. But that might be b/c it turns out I'm sick and was probably getting sick yesterday. So I guess it's only partially Ogged's fault.

The're pure evil *and rich*. My being partly evil and having no money is *particularly* frustrating.


Posted by: Ile | Link to this comment | 10- 7-14 4:50 PM
horizontal rule