4 ms·
Did anyone investigate this person to see if she’s being bought by any “Foreign” Gov’t?
by jayde2767 11mo ago
Did anyone investigate this person to see if she’s being bought by any “Foreign” Gov’t?
- M3L0NM4N 11mo agoDon't attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by ignorance.
- quantummagic 11mo agoThat seems like a cliché happily championed by the malicious.
- bell-cot 11mo agoVs. conspiracy theorists are happy to imagine an evil genius black op behind every village idiot?
- fsflover 11mo agoSnowden proved that conspiracy theorists were right.
- bell-cot 11mo agoBroken clocks are occasionally right. Yet intelligent people never seem to use them to tell time...
- fsflover 11mo agoHe wasn't the only one.
- bell-cot 11mo agoWhat fraction of conspiracy theories have proven correct, at a Snowden-ish level? My sense is that conspiracy theorists are essentially a cron job crying "Wolf!" every 60 seconds. The occasional real-world wolf does not justify paying any attention to the alarms. OTOH, it's a false dichotomy to believe that the false alarms prove the non-existence of wolves.
- stronglikedan 11mo agoAs recommended by the CIA: https://youtu.be/Ro7sIqpcspM https://youtu.be/Ro7sIqpcspM
- potato3732842 11mo agoResults matter.
- mywittyname 11mo agoIf the past decade of my life has taught me anything, it's "attribute all malicious actions to malice." It's usually just a matter of direct vs. indirect malice. Meaning, are they directly benefiting from their malicious actions or are they just assholes who "do it for the lulz".
- vintermann 11mo agoThe malicious actions are just at the potential stage at the moment. Someone has the capability to mess with our buses by means of a remote software update. Just like someone has the capability to do with virtually everything we have running software.
- deleted 11mo ago[deleted]
- LtWorf 11mo agoOr by competence… Why are we trusting that creating a large and corrupt company would somehow help anyone in EU?
- kelnos 11mo agoOr maybe she just doesn't believe it's worth discarding anti-trust law over the bogeyman of the day. The two train companies that couldn't merge can still make trains, and still sell them to whomever they want. European purchasers can still buy them. And after reading articles like this one, these two companies have a big competitive advantage: they don't include Chinese backdoors. Maybe they're small now, but if the Chinese train/bus/etc. manufacturing companies end up being blacklisted in the EU, these two companies will grow. And, better yet, there will still be some healthy competition in the space.
- hnthrowaway0315 11mo agoI found it very hard to believe that a Chinese company has more influence than Alstrom + Siemens, in Europe. It might make sense if it's a US company, but I find it difficult to believe for a Chinese one, especially that the recent Netherland example shows that EU can do whatever they want using what excuses they can find, and execute very efficiently. I'd like to post some questions for thought: 1. What is exactly the bidding process of that particular transaction the OP described? 2. What is exactly in the contract? Does it force the Chinese company to use a lot of local companies for sub-contracting, at the same time keeping a very low profit? In essence, this basically means the EU companies grabbed the biggest share while the Chinese company just got the job. I'm not saying this is the case, but I highly doubt it IS the case as I heard similar stories from other companies.