4 ms·

Did you mean to reply to the 9to5mac article about the Bloomberg hardware expert Joe Fitzpatrick concerns about the Supermicro story? If so I do not understand

Did you mean to reply to the 9to5mac article about the Bloomberg hardware expert Joe Fitzpatrick concerns about the Supermicro story? If so I do not understand your comment

ggggtez 8y ago
"They’re not outright wrong, but they are theoretical" The source is upset that his technical jargon and long-winded explanation didn't make the final article. That's the connection to the above post. If you are a non-technical reader, and you had to read the raw transcript of a hardware guy telling you about firmware updates, you'd fall asleep. The point here is that the journalist cut out that stuff, which maybe makes the story less accurate, but the point of the story is still preserved.
- detaro 8y ago
  That doesn't seem like a good summary. The bigger criticism is IMHO this: > When the piece was published, he was expecting to read about how this specific hack was achieved. Instead, he said, Bloomberg appeared to be parroting the precise theory he had outlined.
  - ggggtez 8y ago
    It's a summary of the above poster and why they said it. It answers the question of why the post was written. I don't have any stake in this.
    - WillPostForFood 8y ago
      I think you are misreading it. The source is upset because his long winded explanation /did/ make the article, but evidence that his explanation was anything other than theorizing did not. he was expecting to read about how this specific hack was achieved. Instead, he said, Bloomberg appeared to be parroting the precise theory he had outlined I don’t read that as jealousy, but surprise that his theory became fact in the story.
    - albedoa 8y ago
      But you're claiming the opposite of what happened.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
jessriedel 8y ago
Yea, I did. I agree my comment was tangential to the article title, but the idea is that the overconfidence in these sorts of stories might be at least partially attributable to journalists overemphasizing importance/impact/emotions to the detriment of accuracy/skepticism. (I actually said something to this effect when I first wrote my comment, then removed it because I felt like I was editorializing too much.)

Did you mean to reply to the 9to5mac article about the Bloomberg hardware expert Joe Fitzpatrick concerns about the Supermicro story? If so I do not understand your comment

ggggtez 8y ago

"They’re not outright wrong, but they are theoretical" The source is upset that his technical jargon and long-winded explanation didn't make the final article. That's the connection to the above post. If you are a non-technical reader, and you had to read the raw transcript of a hardware guy telling you about firmware updates, you'd fall asleep. The point here is that the journalist cut out that stuff, which maybe makes the story less accurate, but the point of the story is still preserved.

detaro 8y ago
That doesn't seem like a good summary. The bigger criticism is IMHO this: > When the piece was published, he was expecting to read about how this specific hack was achieved. Instead, he said, Bloomberg appeared to be parroting the precise theory he had outlined.
- ggggtez 8y ago
  It's a summary of the above poster and why they said it. It answers the question of why the post was written. I don't have any stake in this.
  - WillPostForFood 8y ago
    I think you are misreading it. The source is upset because his long winded explanation /did/ make the article, but evidence that his explanation was anything other than theorizing did not. he was expecting to read about how this specific hack was achieved. Instead, he said, Bloomberg appeared to be parroting the precise theory he had outlined I don’t read that as jealousy, but surprise that his theory became fact in the story.
  - albedoa 8y ago
    But you're claiming the opposite of what happened.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

jessriedel 8y ago

Yea, I did. I agree my comment was tangential to the article title, but the idea is that the overconfidence in these sorts of stories might be at least partially attributable to journalists overemphasizing importance/impact/emotions to the detriment of accuracy/skepticism. (I actually said something to this effect when I first wrote my comment, then removed it because I felt like I was editorializing too much.)