4 ms·

> On the one hand, if true, all Bloomberg had to do was produce evidence; a single compromised server. They didn't. If the story were true, under what circumst

> On the one hand, if true, all Bloomberg had to do was produce evidence; a single compromised server. They didn't. If the story were true, under what circumstances could Bloomberg reports have come into possession of a compromised sever to satisfy this requirement? > On the other hand, if the journalists fabricated the entire story Journalists evaluate and report what they're told by sources. For instance: they don't do scientific experiments themselves, but rather interview scientists about their results and report their statements. Their quality control is to get multiple sources to corroborate each other. Saying Bloomberg journalists "fabricated" the story is going too far. If it's false, what's likely is that either their sources were either mistaken or dishonest.

aguyfromnb 7y ago
>If it's false, what's likely is that either their sources were either mistaken or dishonest. So where is the retraction or followup reporting? Do they still believe it to be true? That's interesting in itself, is it not?
PeterisP 7y ago
It's kind of not the case here. First, they're not required to take any claims at face value, they can (and would be expected to) verify if they're actually true by looking at the evidence their sources provide - and if there's no evidence, then they'd be expected to note that it's all speculation. Second, at least some of the claimed sources were not anonymous and were interviewed later by others (there were a few HN threads back them some weeks after the initial story) and they explicitly disclaimed that they have confirmed the case, but rather that all they have told Bloomberg is essentially "something like this might be theoretically possible, sure, but the current evidence doesn't suggest that this has happened" - so we have some evidence that these Bloomberg journalists "attempted" to corroborate multiple sources which did not confirm the story that they wanted to tell, but they went ahead with the story anyway.
scarejunba 7y ago
Buy it from a data center sale? We nuked our drives and sold the rest to a liquidation company when we moved to GCP. It's trivial to pick these up. It's Bloomberg, my dudes. That news source is the lowest quality trusted news source. I like that they can stay in business though. Made a neat 30+% on SMCI easy peasy. And that requires people like you to trust Bloomberg so that's good.

aguyfromnb 7y ago

>If it's false, what's likely is that either their sources were either mistaken or dishonest. So where is the retraction or followup reporting? Do they still believe it to be true? That's interesting in itself, is it not?

PeterisP 7y ago

It's kind of not the case here. First, they're not required to take any claims at face value, they can (and would be expected to) verify if they're actually true by looking at the evidence their sources provide - and if there's no evidence, then they'd be expected to note that it's all speculation. Second, at least some of the claimed sources were not anonymous and were interviewed later by others (there were a few HN threads back them some weeks after the initial story) and they explicitly disclaimed that they have confirmed the case, but rather that all they have told Bloomberg is essentially "something like this might be theoretically possible, sure, but the current evidence doesn't suggest that this has happened" - so we have some evidence that these Bloomberg journalists "attempted" to corroborate multiple sources which did not confirm the story that they wanted to tell, but they went ahead with the story anyway.

scarejunba 7y ago

Buy it from a data center sale? We nuked our drives and sold the rest to a liquidation company when we moved to GCP. It's trivial to pick these up. It's Bloomberg, my dudes. That news source is the lowest quality trusted news source. I like that they can stay in business though. Made a neat 30+% on SMCI easy peasy. And that requires people like you to trust Bloomberg so that's good.