4 ms·

OK, so he has now upped the ante. Either he's being completely truthful -- and AAPL stockholders have less to worry about -- or he's lying outright. If he's lyi

by sabat 18y ago

OK, so he has now upped the ante. Either he's being completely truthful -- and AAPL stockholders have less to worry about -- or he's lying outright. If he's lying, people will go to jail. If Steve dies, the SEC will find others complicit in this lie and they'll do serious time.

unalone 18y ago
Do you really think Steve Jobs would lie about his health like this? What reason does he have? Why would he invent something like hormone deficiency? Why would he lie about being at risk of his life?
- sabat 18y ago
  No, I don't think he would lie to this extent. That's my point. Either he's done something only a crazy person would do, or we can believe him. My point is that by coming out with specifics, he's made it easy to believe -- not just because he's being specific about what's wrong, but because if he was lying then a bunch of people would suffer horribly. (And what would be the point of that?)
- gojomo 18y ago
  People lie^H^H^H spin all the time, Jobs included, for all sorts of reasons. They also carefully choose words and what to reveal to make statements that are unfalsifiable/defensible, but still give the wrong impression to most readers. I believe what Jobs has written here is substantially true -- the identifiable incentives for him and the company are to reveal the smallest amount of true information possible to assuage fan and investor fears. But there always remains a nonzero chance he's using his famous 'Reality Distortion Field'. So sabat's point in the grandparent post is fair. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality_distortion_field http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality_distortion_field
sutro 18y ago
Well given that the SEC gave Apple the smallest of slaps on the wrist for backdating options (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nancy_Heinen http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nancy_Heinen), and given that they failed to do anything at all about Madoff despite Markopolos beating them over the head with detailed evidence about his Ponzi scheme for ten years (http://mises.org/story/3273 http://mises.org/story/3273), and given that SEC staffers seem to do little more than surf porn and run their own private businesses (http://www.soxfirst.com/50226711/sec_porn_conflicts_of_interest_and_private_businesses.php http://www.soxfirst.com/50226711/sec_porn_conflicts_of_inter...), I wouldn't hold my breath over any SEC action for something as ambiguous and comparatively trivial as this.

by sabat 18y ago

unalone 18y ago

Do you really think Steve Jobs would lie about his health like this? What reason does he have? Why would he invent something like hormone deficiency? Why would he lie about being at risk of his life?

sabat 18y ago
No, I don't think he would lie to this extent. That's my point. Either he's done something only a crazy person would do, or we can believe him. My point is that by coming out with specifics, he's made it easy to believe -- not just because he's being specific about what's wrong, but because if he was lying then a bunch of people would suffer horribly. (And what would be the point of that?)
gojomo 18y ago
People lie^H^H^H spin all the time, Jobs included, for all sorts of reasons. They also carefully choose words and what to reveal to make statements that are unfalsifiable/defensible, but still give the wrong impression to most readers. I believe what Jobs has written here is substantially true -- the identifiable incentives for him and the company are to reveal the smallest amount of true information possible to assuage fan and investor fears. But there always remains a nonzero chance he's using his famous 'Reality Distortion Field'. So sabat's point in the grandparent post is fair. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality_distortion_field http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality_distortion_field

sutro 18y ago

Well given that the SEC gave Apple the smallest of slaps on the wrist for backdating options (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nancy_Heinen http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nancy_Heinen), and given that they failed to do anything at all about Madoff despite Markopolos beating them over the head with detailed evidence about his Ponzi scheme for ten years (http://mises.org/story/3273 http://mises.org/story/3273), and given that SEC staffers seem to do little more than surf porn and run their own private businesses (http://www.soxfirst.com/50226711/sec_porn_conflicts_of_interest_and_private_businesses.php http://www.soxfirst.com/50226711/sec_porn_conflicts_of_inter...), I wouldn't hold my breath over any SEC action for something as ambiguous and comparatively trivial as this.