5 ms·

> Based on prior experience with investigative journalism there's no way they would go all in with a story like this if they weren't standing on firm ground. Ev

by phil21 8y ago

> Based on prior experience with investigative journalism there's no way they would go all in with a story like this if they weren't standing on firm ground. Every single sentence would've been vetted. And based on my prior experience I would make the exact opposite conclusion. Technical writers are rarely technical, and they seem to be happy to make stuff up and mislead - even if unintentionally - so long as they make their deadlines. Every tech article written about a subject I was directly involved in has not even gotten the spirit of the topic remotely accurate, much less minute technical details such as what chip is used where. That said - I fully believe supply chains are entirely compromised. I just don't think in this case I'd really put much stock into this specific reporting - they've already been caught blatantly misleading their readers by putting up a photo of a stock Mouser part and not denoting it as such.

hashtag11ben 8y ago
I agree that technical details sometimes gets misrepresented or come out plain wrong. That's my observation as well and it's annoying when you're knowledgeable in the subject and try to make sense of what you've read (or read between the lines). I think a contributing factor is that it's generally hard to write about things you don't fully understand with the correct nomenclature. Especially when you might not be able to talk/ask for help about specifics with people more knowledgeable because of the secretive process. Things could've been dumbed down, intentionally or unintentionally, by those involved. It wouldn't be hard to imagine a conversation like: "-So it was sort of a coupler thing? -You could say that, yes". Or what if the technical detail came from a Chinese source and Google translate mangled it? The coupler thing is dumb and so is the picture (assuming it was a random product picture) but at least they might serve as a way of communicating the big picture: a hard to spot electronic "coupler" thing.
- pishpash 8y ago
  Not in this case. One of the sources was interviewed and said the technical details were only suggestive: https://risky.biz/RB517_feature/ https://risky.biz/RB517_feature/ Maybe there is something there, and/or there is a reason to talk/substitute in vague terms, but insofar as the explicit technical details are concerned, they don't appear credible. Then you're left with an empty allegation that you will have to decide to believe or not based on no other ground than potentiality.

by phil21 8y ago

hashtag11ben 8y ago

I agree that technical details sometimes gets misrepresented or come out plain wrong. That's my observation as well and it's annoying when you're knowledgeable in the subject and try to make sense of what you've read (or read between the lines). I think a contributing factor is that it's generally hard to write about things you don't fully understand with the correct nomenclature. Especially when you might not be able to talk/ask for help about specifics with people more knowledgeable because of the secretive process. Things could've been dumbed down, intentionally or unintentionally, by those involved. It wouldn't be hard to imagine a conversation like: "-So it was sort of a coupler thing? -You could say that, yes". Or what if the technical detail came from a Chinese source and Google translate mangled it? The coupler thing is dumb and so is the picture (assuming it was a random product picture) but at least they might serve as a way of communicating the big picture: a hard to spot electronic "coupler" thing.

pishpash 8y ago
Not in this case. One of the sources was interviewed and said the technical details were only suggestive: https://risky.biz/RB517_feature/ https://risky.biz/RB517_feature/ Maybe there is something there, and/or there is a reason to talk/substitute in vague terms, but insofar as the explicit technical details are concerned, they don't appear credible. Then you're left with an empty allegation that you will have to decide to believe or not based on no other ground than potentiality.