[bfkwlfkjf]

> Asked about the leaked document, Amazon spokesperson Margaret Callahan described it as “obsolete” and said it “completely misrepresents Amazon’s current water usage strategy”.

> “A document’s existence doesn’t guarantee its accuracy or finality,” she said. “Meetings often reshape documents or reveal flawed findings or claims.”

Here's a person trained to speak in half truths. Am I the only one to find this revolting? Please tell me I'm not alone.

[rcxdude]

Maybe, but it is entirely possible that someone put together some numbers and got them completely wrong, in which case those statements sound pretty reasonable. They could be misleading or outright false, but we don't know that either way based on those statements.

[terribleperson]

We can make assumptions, however.

The claims made by the document referred to in the article are potentially harmful to Amazon. If they were untrue and the truth painted Amazon in a better light, they would likely be willing to counter the article with information of their own.

That they instead respond with a total non-answer is a signal that either the document is accurate, or the truth is worse.

[monerozcash]

It seems likely that the news cycle for a story like this is shorter than the time it would take to produce such numbers.

[spicyusername]

You're definitely not alone. Most people find this problematic.

Unfortunately, most of those people aren't elected.

[RandomBacon]

> completely misrepresents Amazon’s current water usage

Because their current water use is much higher?

("Strategy" is a meaningless word here.)