[modeless]

Not naming sources is one thing, but which news stories from The Information were false? IMO they have an amazing track record, to the point where half the tech news you read is some journalist's distorted summary of something they read in The Information. There's a reason they can charge $400 per year and people pay.

[riku_iki]

I didn't say "false", I said rumors which are not possible to verify.

[modeless]

The service they provide is verifying rumors, essentially. Due to the nature of the subject matter it's not possible for them to show you all the data you need to verify things yourself. If you don't want to trust their verification that's your prerogative but IMO rather silly considering their excellent past track record. And that's coming from someone who is extremely critical of most journalism these days.

[riku_iki]

> IMO rather silly considering their excellent past track record

this is absolute handvawing

[modeless]

Their past reporting on non-public information that I was personally familiar with has been 100% correct. This particular news about $10m packages was just corroborated independently by some well known researchers I follow on Twitter. Based on that and their prior track record of things they reported first that later became public and were true, I trust their reporting on other things I can't immediately verify.

[riku_iki]

> This particular news about $10m packages was just corroborated independently by some well known researchers I follow on Twitter.

can you post the link?

[modeless]

https://x.com/ericjang11/status/1724231320317120676