Another top comment: See, like Gabe Newell said, piracy is a service problem, not a price problem.
Me:
Seriously, just admit you think you deserve a product without paying for it. Going “piracy is justified *because* people tried to charge money for this thing that cost money to make” just makes you sound like a dick.
If piracy becomes more convenient than paying for the service, then people are going to pirate. It’s not about it being justified, it’s about being aware that it’s gonna happen. People will pirate shit if it becomes more complicated to get the shit you want legitimately than it is to pirate it.
People who pirate, including myself, honestly couldn’t give less of a shit if it’s morally justified or not, if it takes me too much bullshit to just watch a series or play a video game, we’re going to get it somewhere with less bullshit.
Thought-terminating cliche.
No, I’m just mocking someone who’s making the exact same sort of argument I already disagreed with. Which is why I mentioned the Gaben quote.
That’s not the same as a thought-terminating cliche.
Especially when I won’t even pretend I’m making a serious argument with it. It’s literally just spiteful, frustrated mockery.
Fun fact: mockery can be a form of thought-terminating cliche. There’s nothing about “being serious” with it that defines it. If you use a cheap, easy phrase to dismiss what someone said without addressing their points, you’re using a thought-terminating cliche. Simple as.
The person you’re responding to didn’t mock you. If you don’t want to address their points because you’ve already addressed them, you could’ve pointed that out without mocking them or not said anything at all. Instead, you needed to let them know that you think you’re above having a conversation with them and you used a thought-terminating cliche to do so.
Another top comment: See, like Gabe Newell said, piracy is a service problem, not a price problem.
Me:
Seriously, just admit you think you deserve a product without paying for it. Going “piracy is justified *because* people tried to charge money for this thing that cost money to make” just makes you sound like a dick.
If piracy becomes more convenient than paying for the service, then people are going to pirate. It’s not about it being justified, it’s about being aware that it’s gonna happen. People will pirate shit if it becomes more complicated to get the shit you want legitimately than it is to pirate it.
People who pirate, including myself, honestly couldn’t give less of a shit if it’s morally justified or not, if it takes me too much bullshit to just watch a series or play a video game, we’re going to get it somewhere with less bullshit.
This is quite a good argument that “antitheists” will find “toxic” and “manipulative”. If you find this “toxic and manipulative” you’ve clearly never been a parent of a teenager where you still have to guide and take care of them while giving them freedom to do what they want and make mistakes and learn and change and grow.
From a tafsir:
“God has endowed man with the freedom of will and choice, with the result that He does not resort to His omnipotent will to compel man either to do certain things or to refrain from others. He rather leaves man free to adopt the course that pleases him - be it that of either belief or unbelief, of either obedience or disobedience. God prefers to instruct man by means of persuasive argument and admonition, so as to bring home to him that even though he is free to disbelieve, disobey and defy the Will of God, his own interest and well-being lie in serving and obeying his Creator.”
It’s a bad argument. People do not choose their beliefs. To treat disbelief as an active choice on the part of disbelievers is pretty toxic and manipulative.
You’re free to test this out yourself, btw. Just drop your current beliefs and believe something else. No worries about choosing the “wrong beliefs” because you can always choose the “right beliefs” afterwards, right?
“How dare you feed your family by selling bread instead of stealing it?”
To actually answer the dimwit: because then the discussion quickly turns to the ideas about entitlement to the labour of others. There can be a discussion that it would be unethical to sell bread while people starve, but then you also need to ask the question as to whether that changes anything about the ethicality of theft.
Or in other words, it all goes back to “does two wrongs make a right”, which is pretty funny because most people figured this shit out as a toddler (hint: the answer is no, two wrongs do not in fact make a right).
if someone has food, and your family does not, rendering theft the only way you and your family can eat, then theft is not wrong, but necessary
withholding food till people starve to death is wrong
it boils down to what happens if the person *does not* steal
“Those who do not work, neither shall they eat.” – LENIN
Anyway, you are not entitled to have someone else work for you for free. 13th Amendment and all that. If you can afford a device with which to access the internet, you are not Jean Valjean.
I do not give two flying fucks if Lenin said it, bitch. One’s right to life is not tied to the work they do for someone else.
And again with the absolutely nutty comparison between someone stealing to survive and slavery, especially going so far as to try and say that I personally want someone’s labor for myself such that I am trying to be the victim in the scenario.
This ain’t about me. It’s about the starving person and it’s about you fuckers trying to justify their starvation under pretenses ranging from comparing their need to steal food to slavery or conquest all the way to making it so the “poor business owner” is suddenly a barely functioning mom & pop bakery proprietor with the sales from that day being the difference between their family eating or not and not the reality of a Walmart or Kroger letting food sit on their shelves till it fucking rots.
As though by reciting a magic phrase of “but Lenin said” makes you any less of a petty, apathetically cruel jackass who’d rather somebody starve than your “glorious free market values” be infringed.
I say again: I do not give a flying fuck who says it. If Jesus Christ himself were to come down and say it, the words “Those who do not work, neither shall they eat.” are and will always be an ultimatum of state violence against one’s life if they do not submit their labor.
You wanna compare something to slavery, how’s about that very fucking sentence, bitch? How’s about the very idea that you must labor for someone else to be allowed to eat be considered as a whip on a slave’s back?
I do not give two flying fucks if Lenin said it, bitch. One’s right to life is not tied to the work they do for someone else.
Ooh, a tankie disowning the USSR? Lemme guess, that wasn’t reeeeeaall socialism, was it?
This ain’t about me. It’s about the starving person
No no, it’s about you. We both know that the hypothetical starving person is a stand-in for your desire to justify theft as a whole with what you think is morality. You are not saying “starving people are morally ok to steal enough to survive” you’re saying “because starving people exist, theft is ok”, and demanding I treat the latter as the former.
You wanna compare something to slavery, how’s about that very fucking sentence, bitch? How’s about the very idea that you must labor for someone else to be allowed to eat be considered as a whip on a slave’s back?
Except I don’t have to do that. I can leave society and go live in the woods if I want. There’s still hermits out there. I can choose not to work, but I’ll also deal with the consequences of that. Also, your second sentence isn’t grammatically sound-”the very idea that…to be considered as” should be something like “the very idea that…is” or something to that effect. Also, what are you trying to say? That it’s slavery to have to provide for yourself?
“I can leave society and go live in the woods if I want.” No, sorry, you can’t. Even if you tried, you’d still end up bringing civilization with you in the form of those lovely little tools you’d wanna use to go make your little cabin in the woods.
And “providing for yourself?” You call having the grand majority of the food and resources kept under lock and key to be given out as part of an ultimatum where you give your labor or die “providing for yourself”?
You’re living solidly in a capitalistic mirror world. Your sense of what’s fair has been turned on its head so completely that you regard someone’s desperate bid for survival as a fucking attempt to enslave somebody for fuck’s sake.
I would ask where you understand how fucked in the head that is, but I know you don’t. I was in your mental shoes once. Ready and unhesitating to justify somebody dying by pretending they’re the villain and that this makes it ok for them to die.
I grew out of that mentality. Though I sincerely doubt an argument on the internet from the safety of your home would do jack shit to change your mind about this.
You’re all well and good to pass armchair judgement on someone online. Unfortunately, the twisted funhouse mirror scenario you’ve come up with is not how reality works.
And “providing for yourself?” You call having the grand majority of the food and resources kept under lock and key to be given out as part of an ultimatum where you give your labor or die “providing for yourself”?
You know, if you use enough bad metaphors, anything sounds evil. For example, I stabbed myself with a disease-filled piece of metal last week. Sounds like I just signed my own death warrant, right? I got a shot. That’s what you’re doing here.
You’re living solidly in a capitalistic mirror world.
I live in a world where you need to exchange things of value with others in order to live the way you want. You live in a Hunger Games self-insert fanfic.
Your sense of what’s fair has been turned on its head so completely that you regard someone’s desperate bid for survival as a fucking attempt to enslave somebody for fuck’s sake.
I specifically laid out how “starving people stealing to survive” is not what’s being discussed here, and therefore not literally what I’m referring to. Please actually read what I say if you want to criticize it.
Unfortunately, the twisted funhouse mirror scenario you’ve come up with is not how reality works.
Said the socialist. Tell me, how’s East Germany doing these days? How about Albania? Cuba? Venezuela? Or perhaps Maoist China is more your speed? And before you pull a “that’s not reeeeaaall socialism” out of your ass, ask yourself why people might see a problem when 100% of all attempts to create socialism resulted in dictatorships.
that last paragraph is a parade of thought-terminating cliches
you’ve hunkered down and bunkered your beliefs so hard I could probably break a hammer on em
we’re done here, cause like I said, an internet argument won’t change the mind of an armchair arbiter
that last paragraph is a parade of thought-terminating cliches
You say that, but if I ask you to explain how I’m wrong you won’t. You’ll say it’s because it’s too obvious or because you just don’t wanna, but it’s really because you can’t explain it. Because you can’t change history, so all you do is avoid it.
I have explained how you’re wrong. Multiple times. That’s how I know you’re shutting down your brain.
You haven’t told me why I’m wrong about how 100% of all attempts to create socialism resulted in dictatorships. I’ve directly asked you to do that once, and your response was sarcasm dipped in more sarcasm, bereft of any information that could disprove what I said. So: why is my last paragraph “a parade of thought-terminating cliches?” You’ll say it’s too obvious or that you don’t wanna, but it’s really because you can’t explain it.
I like how the person whose moral position is based entirely on superficial emotion, who has spent almost every single word of every post attacking you and everyone they disagree with on this issue…
….wants to pretend they’re the rational person in the argument.
Not to mention the irony of claiming you’re using a “thought terminating cliche” when their first post was a thought terminating cliche, backing up OP’s thought terminating cliche.
I mean, they’re making bad arguments, but they aren’t using thought-terminating cliches. In fact, no one here is using that term correctly. It’s really bizzare.
If we’re going to start barking “Thought-terminating cliche!” every time someone makes what seems to be a bad argument, we’re going to end up in a world where claiming something to be a thought-terminating cliche can be a thought-terminating cliche itself. I don’t think anyone wants that.
“You’re not listening to me because you’re closed-minded” sure seems like one to me. Especially if the person using it seems to be trying to get the last word.
Come to think OP is actually a thought-activating cliche. It’s vague, so people come up with their own rationalizations for theft.
You said that victorlincolnpine’s first post on this thread and OP used thought-terminating cliches. None of those posts said anything like “You’re not listening to me because you’re closed minded”. Granted, this is a thought-terminating cliche that victorlincolnpine used elsewhere in this thread, but that isn’t what you cited in the post I responded to.
“Come to think of it, OP is actually a thought-activating cliche.”
Yes, it isn’t a thought-terminating cliche. You said it was and it wasn’t, so I pointed that out. Now you’re creating a brand new term with the same structure as the term being discussed, even though it has a completely different definition, to make it seem like… what, it wasn’t incorrect to call it a thought-terminating cliche in the first place?
“How dare you feed your family by selling bread instead of stealing it?”
To actually answer the dimwit: because then the discussion quickly turns to the ideas about entitlement to the labour of others. There can be a discussion that it would be unethical to sell bread while people starve, but then you also need to ask the question as to whether that changes anything about the ethicality of theft.
Or in other words, it all goes back to “does two wrongs make a right”, which is pretty funny because most people figured this shit out as a toddler (hint: the answer is no, two wrongs do not in fact make a right).
if someone has food, and your family does not, rendering theft the only way you and your family can eat, then theft is not wrong, but necessary
withholding food till people starve to death is wrong
it boils down to what happens if the person *does not* steal
“Those who do not work, neither shall they eat.” – LENIN
Anyway, you are not entitled to have someone else work for you for free. 13th Amendment and all that. If you can afford a device with which to access the internet, you are not Jean Valjean.
I do not give two flying fucks if Lenin said it, bitch. One’s right to life is not tied to the work they do for someone else.
And again with the absolutely nutty comparison between someone stealing to survive and slavery, especially going so far as to try and say that I personally want someone’s labor for myself such that I am trying to be the victim in the scenario.
This ain’t about me. It’s about the starving person and it’s about you fuckers trying to justify their starvation under pretenses ranging from comparing their need to steal food to slavery or conquest all the way to making it so the “poor business owner” is suddenly a barely functioning mom & pop bakery proprietor with the sales from that day being the difference between their family eating or not and not the reality of a Walmart or Kroger letting food sit on their shelves till it fucking rots.
As though by reciting a magic phrase of “but Lenin said” makes you any less of a petty, apathetically cruel jackass who’d rather somebody starve than your “glorious free market values” be infringed.
I say again: I do not give a flying fuck who says it. If Jesus Christ himself were to come down and say it, the words “Those who do not work, neither shall they eat.” are and will always be an ultimatum of state violence against one’s life if they do not submit their labor.
You wanna compare something to slavery, how’s about that very fucking sentence, bitch? How’s about the very idea that you must labor for someone else to be allowed to eat be considered as a whip on a slave’s back?
I do not give two flying fucks if Lenin said it, bitch. One’s right to life is not tied to the work they do for someone else.
Ooh, a tankie disowning the USSR? Lemme guess, that wasn’t reeeeeaall socialism, was it?
This ain’t about me. It’s about the starving person
No no, it’s about you. We both know that the hypothetical starving person is a stand-in for your desire to justify theft as a whole with what you think is morality. You are not saying “starving people are morally ok to steal enough to survive” you’re saying “because starving people exist, theft is ok”, and demanding I treat the latter as the former.
You wanna compare something to slavery, how’s about that very fucking sentence, bitch? How’s about the very idea that you must labor for someone else to be allowed to eat be considered as a whip on a slave’s back?
Except I don’t have to do that. I can leave society and go live in the woods if I want. There’s still hermits out there. I can choose not to work, but I’ll also deal with the consequences of that. Also, your second sentence isn’t grammatically sound-”the very idea that…to be considered as” should be something like “the very idea that…is” or something to that effect. Also, what are you trying to say? That it’s slavery to have to provide for yourself?
“I can leave society and go live in the woods if I want.” No, sorry, you can’t. Even if you tried, you’d still end up bringing civilization with you in the form of those lovely little tools you’d wanna use to go make your little cabin in the woods.
And “providing for yourself?” You call having the grand majority of the food and resources kept under lock and key to be given out as part of an ultimatum where you give your labor or die “providing for yourself”?
You’re living solidly in a capitalistic mirror world. Your sense of what’s fair has been turned on its head so completely that you regard someone’s desperate bid for survival as a fucking attempt to enslave somebody for fuck’s sake.
I would ask where you understand how fucked in the head that is, but I know you don’t. I was in your mental shoes once. Ready and unhesitating to justify somebody dying by pretending they’re the villain and that this makes it ok for them to die.
I grew out of that mentality. Though I sincerely doubt an argument on the internet from the safety of your home would do jack shit to change your mind about this.
You’re all well and good to pass armchair judgement on someone online. Unfortunately, the twisted funhouse mirror scenario you’ve come up with is not how reality works.
And “providing for yourself?” You call having the grand majority of the food and resources kept under lock and key to be given out as part of an ultimatum where you give your labor or die “providing for yourself”?
You know, if you use enough bad metaphors, anything sounds evil. For example, I stabbed myself with a disease-filled piece of metal last week. Sounds like I just signed my own death warrant, right? I got a shot. That’s what you’re doing here.
You’re living solidly in a capitalistic mirror world.
I live in a world where you need to exchange things of value with others in order to live the way you want. You live in a Hunger Games self-insert fanfic.
Your sense of what’s fair has been turned on its head so completely that you regard someone’s desperate bid for survival as a fucking attempt to enslave somebody for fuck’s sake.
I specifically laid out how “starving people stealing to survive” is not what’s being discussed here, and therefore not literally what I’m referring to. Please actually read what I say if you want to criticize it.
Unfortunately, the twisted funhouse mirror scenario you’ve come up with is not how reality works.
Said the socialist. Tell me, how’s East Germany doing these days? How about Albania? Cuba? Venezuela? Or perhaps Maoist China is more your speed? And before you pull a “that’s not reeeeaaall socialism” out of your ass, ask yourself why people might see a problem when 100% of all attempts to create socialism resulted in dictatorships.
that last paragraph is a parade of thought-terminating cliches
you’ve hunkered down and bunkered your beliefs so hard I could probably break a hammer on em
we’re done here, cause like I said, an internet argument won’t change the mind of an armchair arbiter
that last paragraph is a parade of thought-terminating cliches
You say that, but if I ask you to explain how I’m wrong you won’t. You’ll say it’s because it’s too obvious or because you just don’t wanna, but it’s really because you can’t explain it. Because you can’t change history, so all you do is avoid it.
I have explained how you’re wrong. Multiple times. That’s how I know you’re shutting down your brain.
You haven’t told me why I’m wrong about how 100% of all attempts to create socialism resulted in dictatorships. I’ve directly asked you to do that once, and your response was sarcasm dipped in more sarcasm, bereft of any information that could disprove what I said. So: why is my last paragraph “a parade of thought-terminating cliches?” You’ll say it’s too obvious or that you don’t wanna, but it’s really because you can’t explain it.
I like how the person whose moral position is based entirely on superficial emotion, who has spent almost every single word of every post attacking you and everyone they disagree with on this issue…
….wants to pretend they’re the rational person in the argument.
Not to mention the irony of claiming you’re using a “thought terminating cliche” when their first post was a thought terminating cliche, backing up OP’s thought terminating cliche.
I mean, they’re making bad arguments, but they aren’t using thought-terminating cliches. In fact, no one here is using that term correctly. It’s really bizzare.
If we’re going to start barking “Thought-terminating cliche!” every time someone makes what seems to be a bad argument, we’re going to end up in a world where claiming something to be a thought-terminating cliche can be a thought-terminating cliche itself. I don’t think anyone wants that.
Miscegenation, or interracial mixing, over several generations is thought to have taken its toll, creating a physically lighter and Whiter population.
Should be surprising to no one. We already know these people are heavily racist, they just think it’s fine cuz the race they hate is pale-skinned.
Imagine thinking that “miscegenation” is an ok word to use unironically to talk about people being able to freely choose who to have children with.
Miscegenation, or interracial mixing, over several generations is thought to have taken its toll, creating a physically lighter and Whiter population.
Trying to think of the funniest possible thing that I could do with this information, if I had the science to back it up at least.
I’d say send it to farrakhan but there’s not really any way that he could be more racist already.
congressional black caucus could be fun, not like they can come out against interracial relationships and still pretend to be the good guys after all
I love how they try to science up “it’s bad that races mix”.
I don’t agree with the author at all, but y'all need to learn how to actually click on links and read what they contain before deciding that you disagree with it based on what is an obvious case of quote-mining.
Here is the full paragraph:
Another myth argues that because of the high death toll of Black men caused by the 19th-century wars, Black women in Argentina had no choice but to marry, cohabitate with or form relationships with European men — leading to the “disappearance” of Black people. Miscegenation, or interracial mixing, over several generations is thought to have taken its toll, creating a physically lighter and Whiter population. In this telling, Black women were mere victims of an oppressive regime that dictated every aspect of their lives.
It is clear that the author isn’t saying “race-mixing is bad and the reason for no black people in Argentina lol”. She is explicitly saying that this very idea is “another myth”.
Read the damn article before having an opinion on it.
Ooh ooh, here’s a fun quote;
But White Argentine leaders such as Domingo Faustino Sarmiento, ex-president of Argentina (1868-1874), crafted a different narrative to erase Blackness because they equated modernity with whiteness. Sarmiento wrote “Facundo: Civilization and Barbarism” (1845), which detailed Argentina’s “backwardness” and what he and others perceived as the need to become “civilized.” He was among those who shared a vision for the nation that associated it more strongly with European, rather than African or Amerindian, heritage.
Argentina abolished slavery in 1853 in most of the country and in 1861 in Buenos Aires. With its history of slavery behind it, Argentina’s leaders focused on modernization, looking to Europe as the cradle of civilization and progress. They believed that to join the ranks of Germany, France and England, Argentina had to displace its Black population — both physically and culturally.
In many ways, this was not unique to Argentina. This whitening process was attempted throughout much of Latin America, in places such as Brazil, Uruguay and Cuba.
Now how was this done historically? Well, I guess you didn’t read into it or watch the video;
In Buenos Aires in 1810, only 2.2 percent of African men and 2.5 percent of African women were married to white people. In 1827, the figures increased to 3.0 percent for men and 6.0 percent for women. Racial mixing increased even further as more African men began enlisting in the army.
Between 1810 and 1820 only 19.9% of African men were enlisted in the army. Between 1850 and 1860, this number increased to 51.1%. This led to a sexual imbalance between African men and women in Argentina.
Unions between African women and white men became more common in the wake of massive Italian immigration to the country. This led one African male editorial commentator to quip that, given to the sexual imbalance in the community, black women who “could not get bread would have to settle for pasta”.
According to geneticist the average Argentinian has around 2% African ancestry. Also on average they have about 18% Native Ameridian ancestry, and on average have 80% European ancestry.
This is due to miscegenation, both promoted by culture and law, there wasn’t too much segregation between the races, but on average most would seek to marry into European families, just like most South American nations.
The displacement of blacks wasn’t done through segregation and ostracization, it was done through absorption, the modern black population came from immigration later, 0.37% of the nation identifies as black while the total population is 4-6% of Argentina’s total.
Even the modern black population of Argentina doesn’t consider itself black, because of cultural mixing, they are Argentinians, like their neighbors, they aren’t being erased or suppressed, they are being assimilated, which is what should have happened in the US and other nations.
Now if you want an example of how they did implement segregation and ostracization, look at how they treated the natives.
I gave the quote from the author on Miscegenation, which she views as wrong, as it erases “blackness,” not my fault you don’t take her at her word, for she does believe these myths, as she is, and I quote, the author of “Hiding in Plain Sight: Black Women, the Law of Making a White Argentine Republic.”
It’s as if she has a vested interest in pushing racial ideology bullshit.
Like I said, I don’t agree with the author at all. She is pushing racial ideology bullshit. I never said that she wasn’t.
However, can you point out specifically where she said that race-mixing is wrong because it erases “blackness” in that Washington Post article? This isn’t to say that she doesn’t believe that, just that the specific article in question and the section you quoted doesn’t seem to support that. Maybe she does believe that race mixing is bad and evil. If that is the case, you can probably find something she wrote that unequivocally says that, instead of the quote you provided which does not.
I didn’t watch that video. You linked to an article and quoted that article, so I didn’t really see why it was necessary to watch some people I’ve never heard of talk about that article. I don’t know who they are and I don’t expect them to be objective and unbiased just because they exist and have thoughts about things. If they provided some necessary context about the author that I’m missing out on, you’re free to provide me that context yourself with your own words.
Nice history lesson. I had already assumed that Erika didn’t actually understand the history of Argentinean racial relations. I don’t see how that has anything to do with her supposedly saying that “Black people don’t exist in Argentina because of race-mixing”. Her argument seems to be “Black people exist in Argentina but, because of social pressures engineered by white people, black people choose to not identify as black”. She barely even mentioned race-mixing in that article, which is funny considering how many people on this thread are talking about it as if it was the main topic of her piece.
That is why framing it through a lens of anti-race-mixing is misleading. Her argument is still wrong, though.
Miscegenation, or interracial mixing, over several generations is thought to have taken its toll, creating a physically lighter and Whiter population.
Should be surprising to no one. We already know these people are heavily racist, they just think it’s fine cuz the race they hate is pale-skinned.
Imagine thinking that “miscegenation” is an ok word to use unironically to talk about people being able to freely choose who to have children with.
Miscegenation, or interracial mixing, over several generations is thought to have taken its toll, creating a physically lighter and Whiter population.
Trying to think of the funniest possible thing that I could do with this information, if I had the science to back it up at least.
I’d say send it to farrakhan but there’s not really any way that he could be more racist already.
congressional black caucus could be fun, not like they can come out against interracial relationships and still pretend to be the good guys after all
I love how they try to science up “it’s bad that races mix”.
I don’t agree with the author at all, but y'all need to learn how to actually click on links and read what they contain before deciding that you disagree with it based on what is an obvious case of quote-mining.
Here is the full paragraph:
Another myth argues that because of the high death toll of Black men caused by the 19th-century wars, Black women in Argentina had no choice but to marry, cohabitate with or form relationships with European men — leading to the “disappearance” of Black people. Miscegenation, or interracial mixing, over several generations is thought to have taken its toll, creating a physically lighter and Whiter population. In this telling, Black women were mere victims of an oppressive regime that dictated every aspect of their lives.
It is clear that the author isn’t saying “race-mixing is bad and the reason for no black people in Argentina lol”. She is explicitly saying that this very idea is “another myth”.
Read the damn article before having an opinion on it.
As a 19-year-old sophomore at Stanford, Elizabeth Holmes decided to transform diagnostic medicine so she dropped out of college and used her tuition money to start her own company, Theranos. Ten years later, Holmes, pictured here holding a micro-vial, is on the cutting edge of medical technology — her new blood testing method allows hundreds of tests to be run using only a few drops of blood. And, Holmes’ methods are cheaper, faster, more accurate, and less invasive than conventional methods which often require a separate vial of blood for every test.
As Holmes told Wired.com earlier this year, “I started this company because I wanted to spend my life changing our health care system. When someone you love gets really sick, most of the time when you find out, it’s too late to be able to do something about it. It’s heartbreaking… We wanted to make actionable health information accessible to people everywhere at the time it matters most. That means two things: being able to detect conditions in time to do something about them and providing access to information that can empower people to improve their lives.”
Her tests will revolutionize the public health world as we know it; Making diagnostic testing accessible and affordable for more people (and potentially saving Medicare and Medicaid ~$100 billion each over the next decade). (x)
She is a coauthor on 82 US and 189 foreign patent applications. (x)
Her fear of needles served as a motivator for launching Theranos. (x)
Wow.
How have I never heard of her before!?
One guess…
date of origin: october 8, 2014
Oh, so that’s why Youtube started including her in the suggestions.
![peaceinthestorm:
“Angelos Panagiotou “Angelos”(b.1943, Greek) ~ The Annunciation, 1986
[Source: invaluable.com]
”](https://64.media.tumblr.com/31dfb82a1c84fd37d6f8a0f279bc1432/d89a40ef96ef844a-40/s500x750/3b084b952ae436eb260ebe98f5d4c54bc10642d1.jpg)
