I was in New Mexico recently to see family and my brother said he had recently picked up a hitchhiker who had been searching for the treasure. She had started in Colorado and apparently been following clues found in the poems with geological features to travel along the Rio Grande in search of it. She believed based on her searching at the time (this was 1-2 months ago) that the treasure was likely hidden somewhere in Pilar. Apparently she had found marks on rocks in Embudo that led her to believe it was apparently on the other side of a rock formation she was near.
I wouldn't put too much faith in this person's account, but she had apparently been searching for it non-stop for several months and had been led to Pilar by these "clues".
It's almost hard to believe Uber would be so brazen as to put something like this together, except that breaking the law has been Uber's business model since day 1.
Why would someone do such a thing?
When Google started working on self-driving cars, they went about it academically. They did not plan a sequence of stepping stones that they could sell. They meant to have a product in an indeterminate future which should be immediately perfect and better than a human, essentially not needing a wheel.
Tesla went about it with an engineering perspective. First, cars that can send accumulated data over the Internet. Then, equipped with cameras. Then, with limited assistance, warning the user to take the wheel back in difficult situations. And sporadic updates adding support for more complex cases.
The end goal is identical; but they make money along the way.
In the most recent quarter, Tesla posted a $22 million profit, which was their first profit since first quarter 2013. There have been many times in Tesla's history where things were tight and risky. Things are looking good now, so it is exciting and Tesla seems to be going in a great direction.
It all comes back to Google having tons of money and thus being able to do things Googley.
Uhh, they clearly didn't do their homework if they thought Altman co-founded YC.
Being a partner at YC is certainly a unique qualifier that would basically guarantee acceptance. There is nothing wrong with that. It is awesome, in fact.
One one side you have people who are actively using their political influence to help a company avoid laws and regulations and operate an extremely careless, dangerous, fraudulent, etc. company in a very sensitive industry dealing with people's lives.
On the other side is a former politician who appears to be diversifying her experiences by being a member of the board of several venture-backed tech companies, one of which is a pretty decent way to share files.
The motivations and sinisterness of one of them stands in stark contrast to the other in the example made.
One board member being formerly involved in politics doesn't strike me as valid the way you are comparing it to Theranos.
https://www.crunchbase.com/person/condoleezza-rice/advisory-...