undefined | Better HN

0 pointsrchaud10mo ago0 comments

She wasn't a "superstar" in any way whatsoever. She dropped out after 1 year of undergrad, with zero papers published where she was a principal author, or anything that would even hint that she knew what she was doing. She was rich and connected so was able to get funding on the basis of not much more than a powerpoint and a couple of supportive professors.

0 comments

CalChris10mo ago

Yes, those are the cold facts. I probably should have put superstar in scare quotes. But the con was that she was some sort of Stanford 'superstar'.

I looked over her bio on Wikipedia. Yeah, she certainly came from a rich + connected background. So she understood rich people and what they wanted to hear. However, I don't think her Stanford professors were implicated, at least as far as I've read. They didn't knock any sense into her but they also didn't co-sign.

But none of the adults raised alarm. I got into it once with a VC trying to say that Sand Hill was blameless. That was nonsense too.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 pointsrchaud10mo ago0 comments

0 comments

CalChris10mo ago

Yes, those are the cold facts. I probably should have put superstar in scare quotes. But the con was that she was some sort of Stanford 'superstar'.

But none of the adults raised alarm. I got into it once with a VC trying to say that Sand Hill was blameless. That was nonsense too.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse