Film & TV

Holmes Whistleblower Claims “You Can See Everything” Film Is Misleading

Scott Buchanan2 Comments

Elizabeth Holmes is a very clever woman. She was an honors student in chemical engineering at Stanford, which demonstrates high intellectual engagement. Eager to start her own company, she dropped out to form Theranos, which sold a device purported to be able to run a multitude of medical analyses using just a drop of blood. Numerous professors told her the device could not work (and in fact it did not work), but she pressed ahead anyway and charmed bigwigs and VCs into backing her firm.

When WSJ reporter John Carreyrou started an investigation in 2015, Holmes initiated a hardball campaign to stop Carreyrou from publishing, which included legal and financial threats against both the Journal and the whistleblowers. In 2022, a federal jury convicted her of investment fraud, and she was sentenced to 11 years in prison. Holmes is an accomplished liar, as documented by Forbes (“Watch Elizabeth Holmes Lie To Forbes About Theranos”). There is no ambiguity here.

Enter equally clever filmmaker Nathan Fielder and his colleague Lance Oppenheim. In the month before she shipped out to prison, Holmes and her partner Billy Evans invited Fielder and Oppenheim to their home for extended interviews. Holmes used this as an opportunity to cultivate a sympathetic image of a sincere, vulnerable mother of two young children, who is facing tragic separation from her family. This was a trademark clever Elizabeth Holmes move to dispel the (true) image of the ruthless fraudster, knowing that at some point she would be likely requesting a reduction in her sentence.

Fielder exploits inconsistencies in her statements, and Evans’ unpleasant abusive behavior, to weave a web of “ambiguity” around the Elizabeth Holmes story. Did she actually lie, or was she just confused? Does her mind simply work differently than most people? Oh dear, it is so hard to know…Fielder parlayed this into in a critically-acclaimed documentary, “You Can See Everything.”

Fellow blogger Mike Makowsky captures the strong impressions on audiences made by this movie: The singular dominant theme, for my money, was the grand telephone game that “truth” is distilled through as it skips from source to source, medium to medium. By the end of the film you may find that, like me, you have updated your priors a half dozen times, left with your hands up in the air as the crushing weight of subjective reality threatens to abandon you in a fog of nihilism.

But Mike also supplies a reality check: “Then you get home, rewatch the documentary (“The Inventor: Out for Blood”), scroll through a few bullet points of the actual case and remind yourself that no, this person is very much a crook.”

People who actually know the truth are dismayed. The WSJ investigative journalist John Carreyrou acknowledges that the film is “great” art, but Forbes reports that in a post on X:

Carreyrou pushed back against viewers who find Holmes to be “unknowable” or “ambiguous,” noting she went after himself and Theranos whistleblowers “with everything she had,” saying she ran a “ruthless cover-up of a breathtaking fraud, and she was at the controls.”

Tyler Schultz was a scientist in his early twenties, just starting his career, when he joined Theranos. Within a few months he discovered that the device the company was hawking did not do what it was claimed; this put patients’ health at risk. He first tried to address the problems through internal channels and government oversight, before finally going to the press. Theranos counterattacked viciously, threatening to blacklist him from ever working again in his field and costing him $400,000 in legal bills to defend himself.

Schultz has responded to the film in an accessible 6-minute interview on YouTube, Theranos whistleblower says he nearly jumped out of his seat watching Elizabeth Holmes documentary. He states that the woman portrayed on the screen is absolutely not the actual Elizabeth Holmes of Theranos. He states that Holmes knowingly lied (he gives example). A centerpiece of his criticism is that the medical device that Holmes shows on the film is NOT the device that Theranos sold back in the day. The original device was indisputably a complete fake. By trotting out some completely new device and claiming that it “could” (what does THAT mean??) do wonderful things, Holmes deftly muddies the waters. And Fielder is completely complicit in this muddying. Indeed, the muddiness is what makes the film. Schultz lays out his case in detail in an article in STAT. The Schultz article starts off:

“You Can See Everything” is a hilarious, thrilling, fascinating, beautiful piece of art. What it certainly is not is a documentary, and it’s dangerous to pretend that it is.

I’ve had the displeasure of watching disgraced Theranos founder Elizabeth Holmes at work not just over a three-hour film, but over the entirety of my adult life. I was an employee turned whistleblower at Theranos, my grandfather sat on her board, she came to my family holidays and birthday parties. I met her when I was 20, she went to prison when I was 32. I wish I could have told director Nathan Fielder what I told John Carreyrou when he started investigating her: Do not underestimate Elizabeth Holmes.

The rest of the article is paywalled, but AI will summarize it for you if you ask. See also a Forbes article on the subject.

It seems the only real ambiguity here is whether filmmaker Fielder was too dumb to know Holmes was gaming him, or too ambitious to pass up an opportunity to exploit his encounter with a set of intriguing, dishonest people. Claude summarized it for me this way: Holmes gets a softened image, Fielder gets an enigma, and the audience gets a fog that the court record and the whistleblowers had already cleared.

Some film critics have run out of superlatives in gushing over this film (e.g., “An Astonishing Achievement That Changes How We Experience Cinema“ ). So, let’s give credit to Rick Romancito of the Taos News for calling it straight:

“You Can See Everything” has been praised for reimagining the documentary genre, but to me it merely muddies the waters between fiction and truth.

“You Can See Everything” and the Confidence Trap

mdmakowsky2 Comments

“You Can See Everything” is one of the great film-making experiences of my lifetime. That’s not even a particilularly hot take these days. If you need a recommendation, yes, four stars, you should see it. The singular dominant theme, for my money, was the grand telephone game that “truth” is distilled through as it skips from source to source, medium to medium. By the end of the film you may find that, like me, you have updated your priors a half dozen times, left with your hands up in the air as the crushing weight of subjective reality threatens to abandon you in a fog of nihilism. Then you get home, rewatch the documentary (“The Inventor: Out for Blood”), scroll through a few bullet points of the actual case and remind yourself that no, this person is very much a crook.

But that’s not what I want to talk about. What I want to talk about is confidence.

We are told, repeatedly and with hardly any caveat, that confidence is a good thing. An admirable thing. A sexy thing. But confidence can very much be a trap, particularly if confidence becomes your comparative advantage.

The parable of the young genius has become rooted in the tale of frustrated and constrained greatness. They are precocious and unruly, possibly with a history of mild behavioral issues or sullen solitude. They follow the “normal” track for a few years, often to a prestigious college, where they catch a glimpse of great possibility and simply can’t be held back any longer. They drop out and become an entrepreneur. They pursue investment and promise unblinking greatness and unfathomable innovation with the kind of a committed sureness that only youth can provide.

They are not tradditional frauds, at least not yet, because they believe it everything they say. And why wouldn’t they? They’ve never been wrong. The first time they stepped into an environment where they might be challenged they left before any incontrovertible truths might be controverted. Let’s stop the story here because it rarely actually starts in such a way and, if it does, it usually ends quickly. Which is for the best. It’s not crazy to suggest that the best thing that can happen at this stage is failure. Whether it’s an expert in your field explaining the fallacy underlying your grand promises or venture capitalists simply sniffing out a bad investment, the train stops and you can return to building yourself. You had a good life experience, a new perspective on your own education and skills, and the a greater appreciation for what it means to have something to contribute. No harm, no foul.

But that’s not what happens to a lot of people. Not just undergraduate drop outs either. It’s what can happy to anyone that a market anoints as special. That hype can fuel you until you’ve been running on it for so long you realize, perhaps too late, that you’re no longer selling a product or even yourself. Your selling the story of you. You change your title on LinkedIn to “thought leader”, “visionary”, or “futurist”. You think you are selling yourself, but you’re not because there’s nothing actually there to sell.

And this where the trap is. What you are selling is your confidence in the words coming out of your mouth. The problem is that the words themselves don’t have any value. You don’t know how things work. You don’t know, actually know, biochemistry. Or stochastic modeling. Or tokenization and neural network modeling. You know of them and how to reference them in a manner that obscures your own lack of understanding. The only thing you know, to your creeping dread, is your continued existence in this market is dependent on continuing to dazzle others with the kind of confidence they can only dream of posessing. You’re a carnival barker without a carnival. And eventually someone’s going to walk into an empty tent and they’re going to be pissed.

And that is terrifying.

When you watch “You Can See Everything”, pay attention to how hard they are working to maintain the image that they know what they are talking about. The 3X speed videos and obsession with rapid vocabularly adoption. They know of chemical reagents. And mechanism design. And blood. And lasers. And whatever it is they desperately need to convince people they know about. And notice to whom they scrupulously avoid ever interacting with: anyone with actual scientific or technical expertise. They are always cramming for a exam they didn’t study for. I’d call them dilettantes, but dilettante implies non-trivial, if thin, knowledge about a lot of things. Genuine knowledge. They aren’t dilletantes, they’re frauds.

Imagine Elizabeth Holmes was never sent to prison. What would she be doing right now? It’s pretty obvious to me that she’d be doing exactly the same thing. Selling grand visions wrapped unwavering confidence because that is the only thing she knows how to do. The film trope of the villain confessing to the hero (and the audience) “I’ve come too far” comes to mind.

I’m not saying being confident is going to turn you into a fraud. What I’m saying is that you need to have the skills, knowledge, and other forms of human capital first so that you can offer those skills to the world confidently. Confidence is a useful social lubricant in a market full of imperfect information. It’s useful as a complement, often necessary but never sufficient. To sell naked, untethered confidence itself is to be a confidence person.

You know. A con man.

Joy on Severance and Wild Problems           

Joy BuchananLeave a comment

For EconLog, I wrote a reflective piece on Season 2 of Severance and how it relates to the book Wild Problems by Russ Roberts.

You Cannot Outsource Life: Severance and Wild Problems (EconLog link)

The essay is about pain and a meaningful life.

Rather than accepting that work, grief, and love may transform us, Lumon divides experience from identity.  An adult who is primarily asking, “Who do I want to become?” likely would reject the Lumon…

Read more at the link above. Remember that the first words spoken in Season 1 were “Who are you?” Maybe Russ Roberts should do a whole podcast on this show.

During a rare slower week in the summer (thanks to my sister) I was able to binge Season 2. The genre could be described as Science Fiction. S2 does answer some of the questions raised in S1 but ends with a new cliffhanger to bring you back for Season 3. If you want to enjoy the show, the trick for me was not to take it too seriously. Ben Stiller is a producer and you can see traces of what feels like Zoolander humor to me.

I think the dialog is great. The sibling relationship and marital disputes and office inside jokes feel realistic.

As I said about Season 1, this show could be, among other things, a meditation on AI alignment. When you think enough about AI alignment, I guess you start seeing it in your TV shows. I wrote about that previously in: Artificial Intelligence in the Basement of Lumon Industries

Other previous posts on Severance, based on Season 1:

Lumon Industries and Drudgery (Joy)

Perks in Severance (Joy)

Severance and the Disutility of Work (Mike)

Teamwork with “Tiki-Taka”: The Secret to Spain’s World Cup Successes

Scott Buchanan2 Comments

I am not an attentive soccer (football) follower, but it was hard to ignore the 2026 FIFA World Cup being played in my own country (or at least my own continent). I tuned in for more and more games as the play progressed. Spain progressed further and further along, and finally won the gold.

This was not a one-off fluke. Spain won the World Cup in 2010, and has dominated European soccer for the past 3-4 years. Spain also won the most recent women’s World Cup in 2023. My inquiring mind naturally wanted to know what was behind this success. Spain’s population (49 million) is below that of England, France, or of Germany, so it is not simply having a huge demographic to pull from.

When this question was posted on Reddit, a Spanish fan gave this answer:

This is an interesting question with a lot of possible answers.

The most evident one is the Olympic Games of Barcelona 1992. This created a huge shockwave in Spain, which was still a little bit “isolated” from the rest of the world. The preparation of these games and their success made Spain invest a lot of money on sports infrastructure, trainers and programs, which directly impacted on the accomplishments of the big Spanish sportsmen of that generation: Rafa Nadal, Pau Gasol, Fernando Alonso, the whole Spanish football team 2008-2012 and many others. The success of the modern Spanish football team is supported by them.

But it also has a more deep and old reason. Before the 21st century the Spanish football team, even if they didnt win titles, managed to get good positions in international tournaments. Why? Spaniards have been, traditionally, smaller and weaker than the other Europeans (even if that has obviously changed). We couldn’t engage on physical play with the Dutch, Germans, French, English etc. that ran faster and were stronger than us. We don’t even have that many physical players TODAY. So, we had to rely on mentality and skill.

So the team started to become recognized by their fierce attitude,     their relentless energy and attacking spirit, gaining the nickname of “La furia Roja” (red fury). And also had to rely on skill, passes, building the game from behind and being more tactical and strategical on the field. This set the foundations for the modern “tiki-taka“, the Barça and Spanish playstyle that basically created modern football. These two things, plus Barcelona ’92 were the perfect mix to create a football tradition for many years.

Poking around the AI and Wikipedia and other sources, I found that this reply did a good job summarizing the sources of Spain’s success. I will just elaborate on a few aspects here.

Certainly, the Spanish technique of rapid, relentless passing (so-called tiki-taka) to maintain possession and to draw the opponent out of position to create scoring opportunities was in full view in this World Cup. It is more efficient and effective to rapidly move the ball than to run your players around.  The specifics of this style actually puzzled me when I watched it. In my brief, undistinguished non-career in intramural soccer, I was taught to receive a pass by controlling it with typically two taps, then maybe kick it onward with a third “touch”. But the Spanish players would take an incoming pass and just whack it onward with only one “touch.” That takes exquisite control; get that wrong by just a hair on one of those dozens and dozens of taps back and forth, and there goes your possession.

The internet agrees that Spanish teams historically could not compete head-to-head physically with a team full of hulking northern Europeans, and so they deliberately came up with this alternative playing style that relied on skillful control, not brute strength or size. Another strategic decision by Spanish coaches (trusting in their team’s ball control skills to maintain possession) is to play the defenders up-field, closer to the opponent’s goal, where they can play a role in building attacking pressure.

This playing style depends heavily on teamwork, and is the style promoted through all levels of the Spanish junior/farm teams as well. The whole team operates like a hive-mind organism, with players thinking several moves ahead and trusting the others to do the right thing at the right time. Unlike some other teams, this system is not dependent on one or two superstars to carry the load. I found the Spanish play to be an inspiring facet this year of “the beautiful game.”

PhD Chemical Engineer Finds New Career Booty Hooping

Scott Buchanan1 Comment

I read Straw Dogs, a critique of modern society by English political philosopher John Gray, shortly after it was published in 2002. (No relation to the movie with the same name). Wikipedia summarizes the author’s view as, “Gray blames humanism, and its central view of humanity, for much of the destruction of the natural world, and sees technology as just a tool by which humans will continue destroying the planet and each other.”  I cannot recommend the book as a whole – the reader is left in a state of despairing passivity. My AI justly notes, “Critiques of John Gray’s Straw Dogs: Thoughts on Humans and Other Animals generally center on its extreme pessimism, logical inconsistencies, and rhetorical excesses.”  

All that said, the book did contain many interesting observations. One line of thought that struck me at the time was that, with increasing efficiencies in the production of basic goods and services, more and more human effort will go into simply entertaining or “distracting” each other:

The days when the economy was dominated by agriculture are long gone. Those of industry are nearly over. Economic life is no longer geared chiefly to production. To what then is it geared? To distraction. Contemporary capitalism is prodigiously productive, but the imperative that drives is not productivity. It is to keep boredom at bay. With wants so quickly sated, the economy soon comes to depend on the manufacture of ever more exotic needs.

I was reminded of that line of thought when, at a recent gathering of PhD chemical engineers, I heard that one of our number has become somewhat well-known for a late-career shift. She goes by the name Andrea Hulamyhoop these days. (I happen to know her real last name and approximate age, but she wishes to keep those private).

Her father was a chemical engineering professor, and she earned a PhD in the discipline at Princeton University. She was just going along living a fairly normal sort of life, with a regular job, when without warning, it happened:

Then one day, she saw a girl hula hooping. “She looked really free and happy, and I thought, interesting, maybe I’ll try it.” A few minutes at a time quickly became an obsession. Turns out, there are whole online communities of hula hoopers who share tips and support. Conferences. And many shows and events looking for a pro to dazzle and inspire audiences.

“The hula hoop has changed everything in my life,” she says. “I didn’t know I could become a fit, sporty person. I didn’t know I was one. I love performing, and I love people, and I love parties.

“I always thought my life was a bit OK. My kids were grown up. I was enjoying my job,” she says. “But you know, we kind of think, is this all there is? And then to realize there’s this whole world — it’s been incredible. I’m happier than I’ve ever been in my life.”

Andrea Hulamyhoop doesn’t just swirl a hoop around her waist. She can twirl multiple hoops around multiple body parts, with style. She is perhaps best known for her appearance on America’s Got Talent in 2025, where she smashed previous records by bending over and twirling a hoop around her rear end for just over an hour and fifteen minutes. The crowd went wild.

The physics of this feat seem almost impossible, but seeing is believing. Andrea gives a gracious tutorial here.

When I asked who is the most famous holder of a Princeton chemical engineering PhD, both ChatGPT and Claude insisted that former GE president Jack Welch is more well-known than Andrea the butt-hooper, but I doubt that is true below a certain audience age bracket. She has some 17,000 Instagram followers. I’d be willing to bet that in a crowd of under-40’s today, if you asked “Have you heard about the guy who was president of GE in the 1980’s and 90’s?” or “Have you heard about the gal who can twirl a hula hoop on her butt?”, Andrea Hulamyhoop would win.

All this brought back to my mind the notion that as a society we are able to afford to devote a great deal of time to sheer entertainment, rather than growing potatoes.   A comment by a certain @petesounds9321 on Andrea’s epic 2025 AGT YouTube showed he had evidently not read Straw Dogs:

“I’d say we need more scientists than hula hoopers but hey…maybe I’m way off.”

Take Your Kids to the Movies

Zachary BartschLeave a comment

Economists talk about the ‘Covid Shock’ in 2020 because it was a mostly unpredictable event that had big, measurable effects. People spent a lot less time being in close quarters. Especially hit hard were movie theaters, and other events spaces.

In the several years prior to Covid, “Recreational Service” industry sales had been chugging along, growing at healthy annual rate of 3.4% (inflation adjusted). This category of services includes clubs, sports centers, theaters, and museums. In the blink of an eye, the covid shock drastically reduced spending in that category by more than 60%. See the graph below.

Unfortunately, we don’t have disaggregated series for the components of “Recreational Services”. But we do know that movie theaters were already well past their hay-day. Theaters had been closing and consolidating for more than a decade and ticket sales were down. Many give credit to the popularity of streaming video services and other digital media alternatives. Covid added insult to injury.

Now, going to a movie theater is exceptional. As a teenager in the early naughts, I’d go to the theater easily half a dozen times per year. Now, I don’t think that I’ve gone six times in the last five years. Real growth in the entire recreational service category has grown annually by an anemic 1.8% since 2019. It’s not dead, but that’s also the total industry. I’ve heard the news stories of sports events making a big comeback. I’ve not heard anything like that for movie theaters.

I went to the movies recently and it is not what you remember.

Continue reading →

The Heartwarming Sincerity of Gravity Falls

Joy BuchananLeave a comment

I learned about the children’s cartoon Gravity Falls this year from my kids.  

Bluey is wonderful for kids and adults, but it does feel like a baby show since the younger dog Bingo is 4. If you are getting out of the baby stage with kids, Gravity Falls is great next step with 12-year-old twins. The jokes are funny, especially for American parents today who would have grown up with the cultural references.

Gravity Falls has emotional depth. These days the young folks are in “situationships” trying not to catch feelings (I hear). In Gravity Falls, everyone catches feelings so hard. It’s tragically beautiful like Anna Karenina.  You can watch it on Disney+ and YouTube.  

Joy on The Subscription Economy

Joy Buchanan3 Comments

An Al Jazeera talk show called The Stream had me back again for

“Why subscriptions are taking over our lives”

along with journalist guest Sanya Dosani.

Our episode began with some clips from TikTok of young people expressing anger over feeling trapped in “the subscription economy.” Watch our show at the link above to see.

The subscription economy is a business model shift where consumers pay recurring fees for ongoing access to products/services (like Netflix, SaaS) instead of one-time purchases, focusing on “access over ownership” for predictable revenue. Gen Z feels upset that they are getting charged for subscriptions, some of which they simply forgot to cancel. They have nostalgia for the days of toting a zipper case of CDs onto the yellow school bus in 2004.

My commentary starts around minute 5:30 in the show. The first thing I point out is that, by and large, we have more entertainment available to us at a lower price than people did in that bygone era of mostly cable TV and physical discs. (This is a bit like the point I made on The Stream in March 2025 about how fast fashion represents more stuff for consumers at lower prices, which is good.)

In the episode, we discussed how people can still buy CDs today. Sanya Dosani made the point that, “there’s a place for buying and a place for renting.” Everyone should be aware of how cheap DVDs, books, and CDs are at rummage sales in the United States in 2025. You can get a music album for 50 cents. Some youths have (re)discovered that DVD players are cheaper than a year of streaming subscription costs.  

Around minute 17, I got to bring up my research about intellectual property, digital goods, and morality.

I have two papers with Bart Wilson about taking and digital goods. In 2014, we published “An Experiment on Protecting Intellectual Property”.

And now we have a new working paper titled “You Wouldn’t Steal a Car: Moral Intuition for Intellectual Property” that makes a clean comparisons between the taking of rivalrous physical goods versus nonrival digital goods.

We find that people do not feel bad about taking the digital goods, or “pirating.” We even find that, in a controlled experiment with no previous context for what we might call intellectual property protection, the creators of these digital goods do not call such taking stealing either. It seems to be understood that folks will take and share if they can.

The proposed reason for artificially restricting the taking and resale of intellectual property is that creators need a way to profit from providing a public good. (Intellectual property rights in the U.S. Constitution are covered by Article I, Section 8.)

I said in the interview, “If you were able to just give a song to all of your friends, you probably would, and then that artist might not be able to make songs the next year.”

Thus, I suggested, “The subscription economy is a reaction to the fact that most people don’t view it as wrong to take things they can take and not necessarily pay for them. Companies had to find a new way to be able to make money and stay in business.”

I’ll clarify that I have not done quantitative research to prove that subscription models emerged causally because of pirating. I’m speculating. Another side to this is that people simply want to stream and companies are providing exactly what people want (despite the complaints circulating on TikTok). People reminisce about the “golden days” of early Netflix, but most people forget that the company was losing money at that time.  Media production and distribution companies have to make money to stay in business.

At the end, the host asked me, “… what does it mean for who we are as humans, more of an existential question, where we are going with this age?”

That’s a deeper question than you might expect for a conversation about CD-ROMs. However, people do care about having some tangible form of art about them. Think of the ancients buried alongside beads and dolls. Netflix will never be the only thing that people want. As for Gen Z being upset about convenient Spotify, “what does it mean for who we are” has got to be part of it.

References:

“An Experiment on Protecting Intellectual Property” (2014) with Bart Wilson. Experimental Economics, 17:4, 691-716.

“You Wouldn’t Steal a Car: Moral Intuition for Intellectual Property,” with Bart Wilson 

As an aside, furthermore, I’ll say here on the blog that Gen Z is by some measures the most entertained generation in history. For spiritual, not financial, reasons, I encourage them to cancel their subscriptions, take out their AirPods, and feel the silence and dread for a week.

New TV Comedies on Netflix

Joy BuchananLeave a comment

I don’t spend a lot of time watching TV, but sometimes I do for fun. If you loved The Office and Parks and Recreation, then here are two new shows that are currently free on Netflix (September 2025).

I normally ignore lawyer shows (and cop/crime shows). But my first recommendation is an Australian lawyer show called Fisk.

Summary: A corporate lawyer must take a job at a suburban law firm after her life implodes in Sydney, and struggles to find her feet navigating grief, money, family, and entitlement.

I have only seen the first three episodes. I have no idea where the story is going, and I love that. Right now Helen has started a new job and is trying to get back on her feet after a divorce. I think it’s safe to say that the character is neurodivergent. The tone reminds me of Ricky Gervais’s The Office (maybe because Australian humor is close to British humor).

Like most Americans, I first discovered Leanne Morgan on Instagram. The real comedian has an interesting story (what Henry Oliver might call a Late Bloomer). So, I was excited when her TV show finally dropped. The first episode might not have hooked me if I didn’t already like her. I thought it picked up as the season went on, and I enjoyed the whole thing. It’s a bit like 30 Rock complete with an appearance by Jack McBrayer.

Tariff Tilly (Satire)

Joy BuchananLeave a comment

Satire news shows are, in my opinion, one of the higher forms of art that my country has produced (and an example of our exports). “Meet Tariff Tilly, the perfect replacement for the 37 dolls your kid does not need” from The Daily Show

“Tariff Tilly” builds. There is even a comment on interest rates (addressed in my previous post).

In this house, we believe in economists writing about dolls. You can find more at https://economistwritingeveryday.com/?s=barbie or https://economistwritingeveryday.com/?s=dolls