25 ms·
I sort of wonder how the Times would have ascertained that the acquisition had been completed in June. I’m wondering if the deal signed in June and closed in Se
by nocoiner 3y ago
I sort of wonder how the Times would have ascertained that the acquisition had been completed in June. I’m wondering if the deal signed in June and closed in September. Maybe they found a merger sub formation doc for “Japan Crate Acquisition Corp.” or something and thought that meant the deal had been completed when the entity was formed.
Still a weird story. And man, that freight broker is either the unluckiest man on earth or not very good at his job.
- keepamovin 3y agoI know right? The freight broker! It's like: Trust random guy who replied on Craigslist -> seems legit! Haha. It is weird certainly to interested but uninvolved readers like us. Yet by the sound of it, to insiders in the industry, this strategic theft is surprisingly common! It must not be weird to insiders, but rather than unfortunate reality of logistics. :( The Times may indeed have been sloppy in their fact checking and reporting, it would be good if they posted the basis for their conclusion. However, it's just as valid to consider they conducted proper due diligence and reported accurately. Without further information, we have to take what they say at the same value as every other fact reported in the story, or if we cast doubt on the fidelity of their reporting and demand further proof, we should do so consistently for every point. Once we begin to doubt that, we can begin to create alternative facts for every point they make--combinatorially increasing the number of possible story interpretations! Haha :)
- wlonkly 3y agoWorth noting that it is not Craigslist itself, though - they made an analogy that the freight hiring website was like the Craigslist of that industry (possibly ubiquity, possibly user experience, who knows?).