7 ms·

This article borders on slander. To call Smashmellow the "Theranos of Marshmallows" is outrageous - even the article says they didn't commit fraud so how would

by agosta 3y ago

This article borders on slander. To call Smashmellow the "Theranos of Marshmallows" is outrageous - even the article says they didn't commit fraud so how would it be even vaguely appropriate to compare them? Absolute garbage journalism

thomasjudge 3y ago
It's Business Insider, what did you expect
jahsome 3y ago
Business Insider is a blog with good branding. Nothing more. Certainly not journalism in any reasonable sense.
- ineedaj0b 3y ago
  It’s funded by some anti-tech people/groups. They really don’t like Elon or Silicon Valley in general. If anyone wants to dig more into that, there’s probably a decent exposé for someone’s Substack.
  - jahsome 3y ago
    Most people don't, so it gets clicks.
petesergeant 3y ago
Quite. If the founder isn’t in jail, and nobody died, then it’s just a startup that didn’t scale. Another pet peeve is people describing Adam Neumann as flying too close to the sun. If you made a list of people who have historically flown exactly, to a micrometer, the idealest distance from the sun, he’s in the top ten. He enriched himself beyond measure and the people who’s money he took seem keen to give him more of it.
unwise-exe 3y ago
The actual comparisons from TFA: > That meant he had to grow fast and figure out the engineering on the fly — the classic entrepreneurial strategy of Silicon Valley. When it works, you get Tesla; when it doesn't, you get Theranos. > But if Theranos taught us anything, it's that a business model won't work if it hinges on a technology that doesn't exist. Sebastiani wasn't an Elizabeth Holmes-style grifter. Marshmallows are real! But he did ignore the experts, and proceeded without having the necessary technology in place. If there wasn't a machine that could mass-produce his marshmallows, he would just build one. How hard could it be? In Silicon Valley parlance, he would fake it until he could make it. The article is severely whitewashing the Theranos fraud. That's why it sees the comparison as legbitimate; it doesn't actually understand what Theranos did that was wrong.
whoitwas 3y ago
In context it made perfect sense. They compared 2 companies who had a product without the technology to enable it.

by agosta 3y ago

thomasjudge 3y ago

It's Business Insider, what did you expect

jahsome 3y ago

Business Insider is a blog with good branding. Nothing more. Certainly not journalism in any reasonable sense.

ineedaj0b 3y ago
It’s funded by some anti-tech people/groups. They really don’t like Elon or Silicon Valley in general. If anyone wants to dig more into that, there’s probably a decent exposé for someone’s Substack.
- jahsome 3y ago
  Most people don't, so it gets clicks.

petesergeant 3y ago

Quite. If the founder isn’t in jail, and nobody died, then it’s just a startup that didn’t scale. Another pet peeve is people describing Adam Neumann as flying too close to the sun. If you made a list of people who have historically flown exactly, to a micrometer, the idealest distance from the sun, he’s in the top ten. He enriched himself beyond measure and the people who’s money he took seem keen to give him more of it.

unwise-exe 3y ago

The actual comparisons from TFA: > That meant he had to grow fast and figure out the engineering on the fly — the classic entrepreneurial strategy of Silicon Valley. When it works, you get Tesla; when it doesn't, you get Theranos. > But if Theranos taught us anything, it's that a business model won't work if it hinges on a technology that doesn't exist. Sebastiani wasn't an Elizabeth Holmes-style grifter. Marshmallows are real! But he did ignore the experts, and proceeded without having the necessary technology in place. If there wasn't a machine that could mass-produce his marshmallows, he would just build one. How hard could it be? In Silicon Valley parlance, he would fake it until he could make it. The article is severely whitewashing the Theranos fraud. That's why it sees the comparison as legbitimate; it doesn't actually understand what Theranos did that was wrong.

whoitwas 3y ago

In context it made perfect sense. They compared 2 companies who had a product without the technology to enable it.