3 ms·
The number is actually quoted as "at least 43". I should have quoted more carefully. Sorry for that. You can google the URL and then click on the link to get t
by fauigerzigerk 7y ago
The number is actually quoted as "at least 43". I should have quoted more carefully. Sorry for that.
You can google the URL and then click on the link to get through the paywall.
- dominotw 7y ago> The number comes from Cognizant I don't see that here http://archive.is/mNxBo http://archive.is/mNxBo was it edited out after u read it?
- fauigerzigerk 7y agoI can't open your link for some reason. But it's all still there in the original FT article. It is a bit unclear though which numbers and findings come from Cognizant and which are from the TfL investigation.
- dominotw 7y agohah yea crazy that article seems to be the only source linking cognizant to those numbers. Those numbers are repeated everywhere without any context or sourcing. Totally sounds like a smear job to me.
- fauigerzigerk 7y agoHaving read it again, I now think the numbers are indeed from TfL and not from the more recent Cognizant review.