Fake it till you are caught red-handed

Theranos is one of the great cases for studying Silicon Valley company taking risks. But in this case, it is not a risk-taking in the category of luck, or the category of success vs. failure. It is a case of blatant fraud.

https://www.wired.com/story/theranos-and-silicon-valleys-fake-it-till-you-make-it-culture/

http://money.cnn.com/2018/03/14/technology/theranos-fraud-scandal/index.html

Theranos is a health technology startup company, claimed to have revolutionary blood test technology that used very small amounts of blood. Theranos' CEO, Elizabeth Holmes, founded the company in 2003 at the age of 19. It sounded like a billion-dollar idea, a potential unicorn company. Its technology and approach were disruptive, exactly what Silicon Valley venture capitalists were looking for. By 2011, the company has been founded for more than 7 years and received about $89 million of funding. It was not a short period of time in terms of valley's startup mentality. Located in Silicon Valley, it must have gone through the boom of Web 2.0 in 2006-2007 and the recession caused by subprime mortgage crisis from 2008 to 2009.

Yet things took a turn in 2011. Holmes was introduced to former Secretary of State George Shultz. Shultz subsequently joined Theranos board of directors, and gradually other all-star members from both public and private sectors. Since then a slew of big name investors came on board: $150 million by Walton family (heir of Walmart founders), $120 million by Rupert Murdoch (Fox/News Corp, owner of WSJ), and $100 million by Betsy DeVos (current Secretary of Education Departement). Theranos received total $1.4 billion (USD) worth of investment by end of 2017 and had a peak valuation at $9 billion. But its technology had never came close to fulfill its promise. Through a series of whistleblower and external challenges, the company can fake no more.

This story was not an outlier of Silicon Valley's startup jungle adventures. It was the scale of the late stage investment in this company and all the public figures involved and their influence that made this story extraordinary. At the same time, a non-investor such as myself may probably also shoulder some of the investor's loss through the purchase of daily household items, monthly fee of TV cable service, and nonetheless college student loans.

第一次文化大革命

中國的第一次文化大革命，是漢武帝的罷黜百家，獨尊儒術。

漢武帝即位時，媽媽（王太后）在，阿嬤（竇太皇太后）也在。朝內掌權有影響力的，都是這些外戚。這些人不是與漢武帝看法不同，便是與其他外戚官員互有嫌隙。漢武帝想要有一個方法把整批人換掉，好做自己想做的事。這時就要一個既創造時代潮流，又名正言順的中心思想，來推動人事變更。當時朝中流行的是黃老之術。政策內容多要求「輕徭薄賦、與民休息」。漢武帝於是找來了董仲舒等人上書變法。以孔孟儒學之名，行革命變法之實。把黃老一派的勢力，逐步汰換而出。

為什麼説那個變法是假文化之名，行革命之實？漢宣帝，漢武帝的曾孫，曾經如此訓斥他的太子（後來即位為漢元帝）：「漢家自有制度，本以霸王道雜之，奈何純任德教，用周政乎！」而他對一般儒生的印象，更是低劣。「且俗儒不達時宜，好是古非今，使人眩於名實，不知所守，何足委任！」這時距離漢武帝罷黜百家，最少也施行了六、七十年。這是劉家自己在家裏教育下一代，下一個皇帝的話。如果漢武帝的獨尊儒術，是真正的政治文化革新，那他的曾孫，這位律己甚嚴的漢宣帝，對兒子也許就不會説出這樣有逆先祖訓示的話。

奈何選賢與能

選賢與能的概念不適用於現代的民主選舉。

賢與能既不是候選人提名的標準，也不是當選後執行付與權責的原始動力。為什麼選民還用選賢與能來作為評薦候選人的第一標準？民主政治的基本假設在於「權力使人腐化，絕對的權力使人絕對的腐化」。選民要傳遞給候選人的信息不應該是期待賢能的想法。賢與能要不是暫時的，不然就是塑造出來的形象。選民有的權力一是讓候選人落選。落選的事實對於候選人事業、心理、及經濟上的壓力，和對政黨組織的震撼，是最有效的溝通。另外一個權力就是抑制公職人員的權責能力，形成當選後競競業業的壓力。

壓力來自於完整的投選機制。如果沒有完整的投選機制，選舉／罷免／創制／複決，人民是沒有真正的權力。沒有權力，卻期盼賢能，那是墮落。這也是一種形式的腐化。

暴民

如果今天美國的黑人跟金恩博士抱怨：“我們當年流血流汗爭來的民權，都讓這些亞洲人坐享其成。我們都被利用了。” 不知道金恩博士會如何答覆。

如果不是當年這些民權運動人士冒著被警棍毆打、催淚瓦斯洗臉的威脅，爭取民權，今天我們在美國的處境就大不同。我們能夠憑著專業知識找到好的工作，不受歧視。購屋置產，不受排擠。也都是這些前“美國暴民”為我們這些亞洲兄弟姊妹爭取後，才立法保護的。如果沒有財產權，工作權，投票權的保護，上了公車火車，不能隨便挑座位入坐。飛機票也買不了。不管你再優秀，都不會成功。因為“門都沒有”。

有人在第一線冒著人身安全的威脅爭取公民應有的權益，如果不能心存感激，最起碼不要冷言冷語。說他們被利用了？是的，就是我們這些安居樂業的良民在利用他們。

Inheritance of digital assets

I was wondering about this topic for quite some time. I just stumbled upon this article,

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/who-inherits-your-itunes-library-2012-08-23

This question is not just for estate and inheritance. In one or two generations, ebooks disappear with their owners. There is no longer a physical form to keep for archiving.  It is not because of the technology but the fact of non-transferable ownership. Can libraries and museums collect, display, and share digital contents once the writers are no longer alive and the publishers cease to exist? When publishing goes digital, are we handing those issues to commercial companies like Apple and Amazon. If so, these companies are enjoying more dominance and financial success than it is shown on the book.