3 ms·

Heads up that propublica doesn't mind intentionally deceiving readers; I don't trust them anymore. Just a few months ago I read this: https://www.propublica.or

by emn13 6y ago

Heads up that propublica doesn't mind intentionally deceiving readers; I don't trust them anymore. Just a few months ago I read this: https://www.propublica.org/article/taxpayers-paid-millions-to-design-a-low-cost-ventilator-for-a-pandemic-instead-the-company-is-selling-versions-of-it-overseas- https://www.propublica.org/article/taxpayers-paid-millions-t... - and my initial reaction was "bad, big company!" A little digging later; turns out the piece is deceptive to the point that I don't buy it's an accident. So hey; maybe they're telling the truth this time. But liar, liar, pants on fire: I'm not believing a word they say without solid external sources anymore. Edit: here, I found a comment by somebody (not me) that sums up the problems with this reporting here: https://arstechnica.com/cars/2020/04/trump-administration-announces-489-million-ventilator-contract-with-gm/?comments=1&post=38793881 https://arstechnica.com/cars/2020/04/trump-administration-an... I get that this isn't terribly on topic for wildfires - but by linking to sources like this we also give them a position of authority, and they don't deserve it. Note that the ventilator article has not been retracted nor updated; they're not willing to admit - let alone correct! - their mistakes either, apparently.

gamblor956 6y ago
There is nothing wrong with the propublica article. It simply claims that the company received public money years ago to design a low-cost ventilator that it never sold, and instead used that money to also design higher-cost ventilators that it actually started selling...without any inventory issues. The company claims that the US tried to order the cheapo ventilators for COVID use too late, and they may be true, but that wasn't the point of the article.
- emn13 6y ago
  The article clearly implies that some or several of involved parties are ripping off taxpayers when instead the actual costs per ventilator are quite low, and not only that, the deal they're referring to wasn't even due now. That's deceptive. Even your summary is deceptive when you say stuff like "instead used that money to also design higher-cost ventilators that it actually started selling" - there seems to be 0 evidence of that occurring at least in any unreasonable sense. Put it this way: what's there actually to report here? That a lowest-possible-cost contract for a few ventilators before 2022 didn't deliver many more before 2020? That the contract looks reasonable, and so far honestly fulfilled? The insinuations aren't harmless. Not only because it might lead people to support more oversight and interventions where none are warranted, but also because they distract from real issues - and there are more than enough of those. Did you look at the slightly more in-depth review of the article in this comment? https://arstechnica.com/cars/2020/04/trump-administration-announces-489-million-ventilator-contract-with-gm/?comments=1&post=38793881 https://arstechnica.com/cars/2020/04/trump-administration-an...

by emn13 6y ago

gamblor956 6y ago

There is nothing wrong with the propublica article. It simply claims that the company received public money years ago to design a low-cost ventilator that it never sold, and instead used that money to also design higher-cost ventilators that it actually started selling...without any inventory issues. The company claims that the US tried to order the cheapo ventilators for COVID use too late, and they may be true, but that wasn't the point of the article.

emn13 6y ago
The article clearly implies that some or several of involved parties are ripping off taxpayers when instead the actual costs per ventilator are quite low, and not only that, the deal they're referring to wasn't even due now. That's deceptive. Even your summary is deceptive when you say stuff like "instead used that money to also design higher-cost ventilators that it actually started selling" - there seems to be 0 evidence of that occurring at least in any unreasonable sense. Put it this way: what's there actually to report here? That a lowest-possible-cost contract for a few ventilators before 2022 didn't deliver many more before 2020? That the contract looks reasonable, and so far honestly fulfilled? The insinuations aren't harmless. Not only because it might lead people to support more oversight and interventions where none are warranted, but also because they distract from real issues - and there are more than enough of those. Did you look at the slightly more in-depth review of the article in this comment? https://arstechnica.com/cars/2020/04/trump-administration-announces-489-million-ventilator-contract-with-gm/?comments=1&post=38793881 https://arstechnica.com/cars/2020/04/trump-administration-an...