3 ms·
Yeah, I had to read the “bug” or “flaw” part twice to be sure they're not saying it isn't a bug or flaw, they're only saying it isn't unique to Intel. And then
by Nition 9y ago
Yeah, I had to read the “bug” or “flaw” part twice to be sure they're not saying it isn't a bug or flaw, they're only saying it isn't unique to Intel.
And then as you say, they immediately mention AMD to imply that everyone has the issue, but they also avoid actually saying that.
Your excellent analysis of what they're really saying reminds me of user thaumaturgy's analysis of Adancing Our Amazing Bet[1].
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12793033 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12793033
- martin1975 9y agoBet you a dollar some lawyer had to vet that three times over before they published it.
- x0x0 9y agoMy suspicion is they don't get sued; rather, Werner Vogels calls Intel and tells them the massive haircut / refund they're gonna take. Or Werner buys amd procs.
- monocasa 9y agoWith the obvious class action suit that's coming, I don't know what else better their counsel has to do on a Monday night.
- Strudelnoggin 9y agoThat same lawyer no doubt had to tell them that the following statement wouldn't fly without the addition of the word "believes": "Intel believes its products are the most secure in the world [ . . . ]"
- martin1975 9y agoNicely done. Words like 'is' incur liability because it can be interpreted as making factual statements that you could be held accountable for. Hurry, get your law degree so you can skin Intel alive ;)
- foobarian 9y agoBet you another dollar it was more than one lawyer.
- simooooo 9y agoThey said it wasn't the paragraph before
- ksec 9y agoThey could have just said other Industry vendors, but they HAD to name names. To add insult to this already cheap shot, it was flat out lies and AMD isn't vulnerable to all three variants. This is just pathetic.