5 ms·

It took them 3 years to achieve this, so yes, they can change that fast... Did you not read the article? It's hard to take your comment in good faith if you di

by hekkle 11mo ago

It took them 3 years to achieve this, so yes, they can change that fast... Did you not read the article? It's hard to take your comment in good faith if you didn't.

Dylan16807 11mo ago
Three years would be an impressive timescale to move a company from one country to another. Except they didn't do that. They moved the HQ. I'll accept for the purpose of this argument that they fully split the company into two separate companies. But both of those companies are still mostly Chinese, going by the numbers in this thread. > Did you not read the article? It's hard to take your comment in good faith if you didn't. This is a weak attempt at turnabout. The article doesn't present any evidence of separation or non-Chinese-ness, it just quotes the company (and even that quote admits a bunch of Chinese assets). But even if it did, it wouldn't be bad faith to skip reading it.
- hekkle 11mo ago
  > This is a weak attempt at turnabout. The article doesn't present any evidence of separation or non-Chinese-ness, it just quotes the company (and even that quote admits a bunch of Chinese assets). But even if it did, it wouldn't be bad faith to skip reading it. 1. Who else would document a company's restructure if not the company itself? 2. Yes, not reading an article and commenting on it is bad faith. > going by the numbers in this thread. 3. So you have no evidence of it not being as the company says, just the vibes of others on this thread, okay Senator.
  - Dylan16807 11mo ago
    > 1. Who else would document a company's restructure if not the company itself? If the company wants to give numbers, I'll listen to them. But the company made vague/unproven claims and that's not enough. Journalists can investigate. > 2. Yes, not reading an article and commenting on it is bad faith. Commenting on something talked about in the article doesn't require reading that specific article. You can use other sources. > 3. So you have no evidence of it not being as the company says, just the vibes of others on this thread, okay Senator. Other people brought objective numbers. Not vibes. Why should I not use those numbers? You have not claimed any of those numbers are wrong, you're just calling people's conclusions wrong.

by hekkle 11mo ago

It took them 3 years to achieve this, so yes, they can change that fast... Did you not read the article? It's hard to take your comment in good faith if you didn't.

Dylan16807 11mo ago

Three years would be an impressive timescale to move a company from one country to another. Except they didn't do that. They moved the HQ. I'll accept for the purpose of this argument that they fully split the company into two separate companies. But both of those companies are still mostly Chinese, going by the numbers in this thread. > Did you not read the article? It's hard to take your comment in good faith if you didn't. This is a weak attempt at turnabout. The article doesn't present any evidence of separation or non-Chinese-ness, it just quotes the company (and even that quote admits a bunch of Chinese assets). But even if it did, it wouldn't be bad faith to skip reading it.

hekkle 11mo ago
> This is a weak attempt at turnabout. The article doesn't present any evidence of separation or non-Chinese-ness, it just quotes the company (and even that quote admits a bunch of Chinese assets). But even if it did, it wouldn't be bad faith to skip reading it. 1. Who else would document a company's restructure if not the company itself? 2. Yes, not reading an article and commenting on it is bad faith. > going by the numbers in this thread. 3. So you have no evidence of it not being as the company says, just the vibes of others on this thread, okay Senator.
- Dylan16807 11mo ago
  > 1. Who else would document a company's restructure if not the company itself? If the company wants to give numbers, I'll listen to them. But the company made vague/unproven claims and that's not enough. Journalists can investigate. > 2. Yes, not reading an article and commenting on it is bad faith. Commenting on something talked about in the article doesn't require reading that specific article. You can use other sources. > 3. So you have no evidence of it not being as the company says, just the vibes of others on this thread, okay Senator. Other people brought objective numbers. Not vibes. Why should I not use those numbers? You have not claimed any of those numbers are wrong, you're just calling people's conclusions wrong.