3 ms·

“Company 2” has to be Qualcomm. Or am I misreading this? The only reason I think I’m misreading is because it’s so obviously Qualcomm that it seems silly for th

“Company 2” has to be Qualcomm. Or am I misreading this? The only reason I think I’m misreading is because it’s so obviously Qualcomm that it seems silly for the article to call it “company 2”.

deleted 8mo ago
[deleted]
mherkender 8mo ago
> Company 2, which develops system-on-chip (SoC) platforms such as the Snapdragon series Only a lawyer could write this with a straight face
- akazantsev 8mo ago
  > On the night before the pair traveled to Iran in December 2023, Samaneh allegedly took about 24 photos of Khosravi’s work computer screen containing Company 2′s trade secrets, including *its* Snapdragon SoCs. Keep reading.
  - onionisafruit 8mo ago
    That’s the point where I realized how thin the curtain is. Earlier the article talked about “Qualcomm’s Snapdragon” as an example of an SoC, but that could have been just to give the reader an idea of what an SoC is. But this line made it clear it wasn’t just an example.
- rdtsc 8mo ago
  Yup. It’s like saying Company X which develops the iPhone smartphone. It’s either extreme incompetence or cheeky disclosure while also technically not naming the company.
- deleted 8mo ago
  [deleted]
- tomjakubowski 8mo ago
  Good morning, class. A certain… agitator—for privacy's sake, let's call her Lisa S. No, that's too obvious. Uh, let's say L. Simpson—has raised questions about certain school policies…
  - almog 8mo ago
    Uh oh, two independent thought alarms in one day! The students are overstimulated. Willie! remove all the colored chalk from the classrooms.
krisoft 8mo ago
> so obviously Qualcomm that it seems silly for the article to call it “company 2” Redactions / aliases are sometimes quite transparent. When policy dictates that it must happen they do it even when it is not hard to puzzle out who the redaction / alias hides. There is the famous interview where the NTSB was interviewing an expert in relation to the Oceangate tragedy. The expert's name was redacted, but he was described as "Co-Designer / Pilot of the Deepsea Challenger" which is already quite a specific thing. Not a lot of people can claim that. And then the interview started like this: Q: So how did you get yourself started into submersible operations? <redacted>: Well, I'm sure you are familiar with my film Titanic. I'm leaving the solution as an exercise for the reader. But it is a real world "Lisa S. No, that's too obvious. Uh, let's say L. Simpson." situation.
- onionisafruit 8mo ago
  It probably wasn’t Jean Negulesco director of Titanic (1953)

deleted 8mo ago

[deleted]

mherkender 8mo ago

> Company 2, which develops system-on-chip (SoC) platforms such as the Snapdragon series Only a lawyer could write this with a straight face

akazantsev 8mo ago
> On the night before the pair traveled to Iran in December 2023, Samaneh allegedly took about 24 photos of Khosravi’s work computer screen containing Company 2′s trade secrets, including *its* Snapdragon SoCs. Keep reading.
- onionisafruit 8mo ago
  That’s the point where I realized how thin the curtain is. Earlier the article talked about “Qualcomm’s Snapdragon” as an example of an SoC, but that could have been just to give the reader an idea of what an SoC is. But this line made it clear it wasn’t just an example.
rdtsc 8mo ago
Yup. It’s like saying Company X which develops the iPhone smartphone. It’s either extreme incompetence or cheeky disclosure while also technically not naming the company.
deleted 8mo ago
[deleted]
tomjakubowski 8mo ago
Good morning, class. A certain… agitator—for privacy's sake, let's call her Lisa S. No, that's too obvious. Uh, let's say L. Simpson—has raised questions about certain school policies…
- almog 8mo ago
  Uh oh, two independent thought alarms in one day! The students are overstimulated. Willie! remove all the colored chalk from the classrooms.

krisoft 8mo ago

> so obviously Qualcomm that it seems silly for the article to call it “company 2” Redactions / aliases are sometimes quite transparent. When policy dictates that it must happen they do it even when it is not hard to puzzle out who the redaction / alias hides. There is the famous interview where the NTSB was interviewing an expert in relation to the Oceangate tragedy. The expert's name was redacted, but he was described as "Co-Designer / Pilot of the Deepsea Challenger" which is already quite a specific thing. Not a lot of people can claim that. And then the interview started like this: Q: So how did you get yourself started into submersible operations? <redacted>: Well, I'm sure you are familiar with my film Titanic. I'm leaving the solution as an exercise for the reader. But it is a real world "Lisa S. No, that's too obvious. Uh, let's say L. Simpson." situation.

onionisafruit 8mo ago
It probably wasn’t Jean Negulesco director of Titanic (1953)