There are some rules of thumb that you and I can use to guess whether a news story is likely to be BS or not. Generally if the story names some sources, or gets a confession from the target (or one or more of the targets), it's more likely to be true than one which does not. You have to know by now that at least some of the news stories are crap. It's not necessary that they be faked at all levels. If a story says researcher interviewed an employee and got bad news, there are many people in that chain that can be full of crap. The editor, story-author, researcher, employee, or maybe what the employee mis-understood? It's possible that the story was well intentioned, but still full of crap. Be suspicious of all of this. And be willing to re-adjust what you know as time goes on. The more named sources that are likely to be pinned to the wall if a mistake was made, the more likely the story is going to be true (ish). A complicated story alleging a history of bad things, should probably be substantiate-able. For instance, there should be hundreds of photographable brand-named PCboards having this interesting chip on it. Show me the reverse engineered schematics, X-rays of the brand-named boards taken by named researchers.
One thing I am sure about and that is some of the media outlets are far too willing to print something to be first, and not interested in being best or most correct. The best way to know that a story is fully baked is wait until there are other media outlets telling you it is wrong wrong wrong. And then you'll likely have enough information available to figure out if the story was actually right or wrong. I'm not saying the newcomers with "wrong" are correct. Just that by then you'll have enough information to hazard a better guess than you did when the first hint of the story broke.
Beware of stories that perfectly fit the mold you are expecting. That just means somebody could be getting lazy.
Oh, well since the GCHQ says it's not true, I guess we definitely should believe them.
....and Tim Cook and Apple’s leadership, and Amazon’s leadership, and AI’s sources. Corporations who are legally barred from lying to their investors. Vs Bloomberg and it’s unnamed sources and zero evidence provided.
Lying has to be proven for it to be illegal. And you have to prove that the lie was done deliberately, instead of it being just a crappy investigation Amazon/Apple did. So, if Amazon did find a problem and decided not to collectively decimate their and Apple's stock prices along with the trust for their respective services, the report would ....ehh.. omit certain details, because the companies did not do (cough) thorough enough investigation into the matter. How about that? Plausible deniability and stuff....
No, that’s still conspiracy theory nonsense. Workers could not squash this sort of security breech. Someone would know, and it would be known to executive management. Apple and Amazon are very specific in their denials, it’s not a matter of plausible deniability.
That depends on how they put those chips on that hardware! Of course, if the claim is that the Chinese just showed up and "glued on" the chips, that would not be a reasonable claim.
NSA or CIA tried warning the american businesses that buying cheap Chinese network equipment might not be such a great idea back in 2011-2013, AFAIK.
It is a fact, that all Chinese comm equipment manufacturers are connected to the Chinese military. So, it is not hard to put 2 and 2 together and create a quite plausible scenario, where Amazon bought a large shipment of cheap network equipment, that does a little more than Amazon wants to know about or admit. I am not saying, that is what happens, but if China wanted to do something like that, there would be enough of US firm who would fall for that!
I read the Bloomberg report and it seems that evidence is already there that is being done. Now the government is saying the report is inaccurate? Come on, man.
Because reporters never lie or color their coverage and editors never cook up fanciful narratives for attention? Come on, man!
That I won't argue. Reporters are probably the most biased people on the planet. However, if people think for a second that corporations do not lie they're fooling themselves. Funny how the anti-corporation folks who talk about "greed" and "corporate jets" and "CEO bonuses" are now coming to their defense.
The two aren’t mutually exclusive. Corporate america is far too greedy, and pays its executives far too much compared to average worker pay (400:1 now). But it’s also true that there is no way Cook is going to blatantly lie about this story just to make China or whoever feel good, considering that it’d against the law to lie to his investors, he’d be fired, and his reputation as well as Apple’s would be in tatters.
Theres no contradiction holding those two opinions, so no idea what you’re on about.
Who are you to decide what a person makes? If you're okay with that then I should be allowed to delve into your private affairs and decide what you make and vice-versa. Fair is fair. What's the definition of greed? The definition as you'll see does not fit into your narrative. Not one bit. And for the record I'm not against corporations.
I have no idea what you’re trying to say.
I am free to believe a 400:1 executive-to-worker ratio is beyond reasonable, is fucking absurd, and a sign of corporate greed run amuck. As are others like me. And we’re free to advocate this position.
I'm trying to find out what you're getting at. You're using the word greed as if you're the final authority on what a person needs and doesn't need. Who gets to decide what a person needs and doesn't need? You? Me? I have the answer to that. You. You get to decide what you need. Myself and nobody else can decide that. I get to decide what I need. Nobody else. And the same applies in all aspects of life from making millions to deciding what kind of socks a person wears. Yes, you're free to form an opinion but it still doesn't make it any of your business what another person earns and doesn't earn. Apple makes billions. Is that absurd to you? Yet, you probably live in the Apple ecosystem I would guess contributing to their bottom line. Let's do this. Take all the millions that a CEO makes in a corporation and only pay them a dollar. How much would the price of your item drop if that were to happen? A nickel? A quarter? I would pay millions to a CEO to make sure that my entity is take care of. If you don't like it tough. It is a MASSIVE undertaking. You haven't the slightest clue how big that responsibility is. If you do then get off the preachers box and create your own empire and lead by example. Show us how it's done. Show us that a corporation can make billions and only pay their CEO $10K a year to keep it running and to keep their shareholders happy. Until then you're not making any sense to those who are actually in those positions and have more responsibilities than you'll ever know when it comes to the world of business.
Oh, well since the GCHQ says it's not true, I guess we definitely should believe them.
....and Tim Cook and Apple’s leadership, and Amazon’s leadership, and AI’s sources. Corporations who are legally barred from lying to their investors. Vs Bloomberg and it’s unnamed sources and zero evidence provided.
There is a very wide spectrum and infinite manipulation ways of articulation between 100% lying and 100% fact.
Comments
One thing I am sure about and that is some of the media outlets are far too willing to print something to be first, and not interested in being best or most correct. The best way to know that a story is fully baked is wait until there are other media outlets telling you it is wrong wrong wrong. And then you'll likely have enough information available to figure out if the story was actually right or wrong. I'm not saying the newcomers with "wrong" are correct. Just that by then you'll have enough information to hazard a better guess than you did when the first hint of the story broke.
Beware of stories that perfectly fit the mold you are expecting. That just means somebody could be getting lazy.
Does that make sense?