|
|
|
|
|
by lobstersammich
1133 days ago
|
|
I hadn't heard of this website, SiliconAngle.com, before this week but they interviewed someone from the company that I work at (not for this Neeva article; for a different article), so they're actually a real news reporting organization. I was reading that article with my colleague's interview this week when I saw the Snowflake + Neeva article title in the sidebar on SiliconAngle.com https://siliconangle.com/2023/05/17/report-claims-snowflake-... The Silicon Angle article cites another article from The Information as being the source of the Snowflake + Neeva news: https://www.theinformation.com/articles/snowflake-in-talks-t... (I don't have a subscription to The Information, so unfortunately I cannot read that article's whole text. If someone with a subscription to The Information could summarize that article and share their summary with the community here I'd appreciate it!) |
|
a.) the headline - "Snowflake in Talks to Buy Search Startup Neeva in AI Push" b.) that you're not sure how reputable the site is.
Instead, you have included several details about how you were reading some other article, leading you to think they are reputable. Then reading (the same? another?) article about a colleague of yours (okay?) where you found a (relevant?) article on that site. You link it, but don't summarize or even paste the headline and go on to discuss _yet another_ organization cited _in_ the article?
I'm sorry - not trying to be rude. It's just very jarring to me when people write in this manner where they are explaining everything _but_ the important parts.