Chinese manufacturer puts hardware backdoor onto Supermicro server boards.

[BravoV]

We have open firmware. It is called OpenFirmware/OpenBoot.

Unfortunately most of our infrastructure is built on a house of cards from the late 1970s with hack after hack piled on top of it (x86). This mandates a pile of drunken arse shite to get the hardware aligned with reality so the OS doesn’t vomit when it finally gets to take over from the masturbating monkey in charge of the show.

Really need to bin x86 and start again.

Problem is, the nasty part was, is and will be always hardwired in main cpu silicon, how can you clean that ? 

[bd139]

POWER, SPARC, ARM. Anything but x86.

Give me a 50% performance hit per watt and I’ll still be a happy man. I’ll be able to sleep better at night.

So far we have compromised hardware, critical implementation flaws, bugs galore (check intel core errata), management hardware compromises. The whole thing is a pile of shit and needs to just be burned. When your manuals spread several volumes for a CPU and compiler implementations only use a small subset of that functionality then you’ve built a Rube Goldberg machine of massive proportions. No one can possibly understand this pile of shit.

I was actually speaking to someone a couple of months ago who has a pretty big grasp on security. They have done everything right. So I get asked what should they do next under continuous improvement. I suggested they start looking at other non x86 platforms. This was met with disbelief and derision. I explained the spectre, meltdown, ME stuff and ironically the supply chain (perhaps I was a prophet lol) and there was an “oh shit” moment. This was followed by rapidly sweeping the idea under the rug because they’re semi happy with HPE being their abusive partner.

Everyone has a price and IT industry has Stockholm syndrome.

We have virtually zero hardware diversity in professional computing. This is a massive risk. Heterogeny was the stupidest thing the IT industry ever did.

[borjam]

We have open firmware. It is called OpenFirmware/OpenBoot.

Unfortunately very very few people can appreciate what that means, used to the "you have .1 seconds to press DEL if you want to configure BIOS shit", or being forced to record a video of the screen in order to see a very critical but brief error message flashing before the BIOS program written by the next idiot clears the screen like some amateuresque BASIC program...

2018 and you still can be forced to shoot a photo of a screen in order to copy stupid BIOS parameters from one machine to the next.

And the EFI machines I have tried are insane. I have IBM servers that take 10 minutes to boot. I even had to erase the BIOS in some LSI SAS cards (not needed anyway, the OS takes care of them) because the braindead EFI implementation choked on them.

Meanwhile I am always missing Sun hardware with Openboot and a serial console that allowed me to capture the whole boot dialog into a file.
 

Unfortunately most of our infrastructure is built on a house of cards from the late 1970s with hack after hack piled on top of it (x86). This mandates a pile of drunken arse shite to get the hardware aligned with reality so the OS doesn’t vomit when it finally gets to take over from the masturbating monkey in charge of the show.

Really need to bin x86 and start again.

It's amazing how many stupid decisions from the IBM PC are still haunting us.

[bd139]

Yes. Stop+A FTW. Being back proper computers!

BTW for those who have never dealt with Sun hardware, OpenBoot was amazing. Totally awesome. And your management interface was a serial concentrator with an AUI interface

[borjam]

POWER, SPARC, ARM. Anything but x86.

Indeed. As we don't depend on Windows at all it wouldn't be a problem for us. Any tier-1 Linux/FreeBSD capable platform and we would feel right at home.  We still have some 20 year old SPARC machines working, even!

Everyone has a price and IT industry has Stockholm syndrome.

We have virtually zero hardware diversity in professional computing. This is a massive risk. Heterogeny was the stupidest thing the IT industry ever did.

Yep, we have repeated the Windows mistake in hardware. And from all the choices the crappiest won.

[tooki]

You did not understand my comment. You’re going off on another condescending cuckoo conspiracy theorist “I’m more aware than you!” rant/sermon, and about evil and your idea of “scientific method” and whatnot, and meanwhile you don’t even realize what I did (and didn’t) say.

No need to reply, I’ve added you to my ignore list. I don’t need the temptation of getting into arguments with conspiracy nuts.

No, I fully understood your comment. I called you out on it. You're the one who resorted to name calling, belittling and personal attacks; I'm just refusing to let you slide on a lie. Call it what you like, but it's still a lie.

A lie? I said “it’s not impossible, it’s improbable and implausible”, which is what almost everyone is saying.

That you think that’s a lie (not to mention don’t understand that it does allow for the possibility of the purported exploit being true) only reinforces my opinion that you’re a conceited conspiracy theorist nut job.

[Cerebus]

You did not understand my comment. You’re going off on another condescending cuckoo conspiracy theorist “I’m more aware than you!” rant/sermon, and about evil and your idea of “scientific method” and whatnot, and meanwhile you don’t even realize what I did (and didn’t) say.

No need to reply, I’ve added you to my ignore list. I don’t need the temptation of getting into arguments with conspiracy nuts.

No, I fully understood your comment. I called you out on it. You're the one who resorted to name calling, belittling and personal attacks; I'm just refusing to let you slide on a lie. Call it what you like, but it's still a lie.

A lie? I said “it’s not impossible, it’s improbable and implausible”, which is what almost everyone is saying.

That you think that’s a lie (not to mention don’t understand that it does allow for the possibility of the purported exploit being true) only reinforces my opinion that you’re a conceited conspiracy theorist nut job.

I think he means 'lie' in the sense of self-deception, not in the sense of dishonesty.

And please, lighten up on the insulting tone it's uncalled for and unseemly. I count both of you as two of the generally saner and more considered voices on here, most of the time.

Don't make me dust off my collection of gnome/chocolate/cuckoo-clock jokes. 

[mnementh]

You did not understand my comment. You’re going off on another condescending cuckoo conspiracy theorist “I’m more aware than you!” rant/sermon, and about evil and your idea of “scientific method” and whatnot, and meanwhile you don’t even realize what I did (and didn’t) say.

No need to reply, I’ve added you to my ignore list. I don’t need the temptation of getting into arguments with conspiracy nuts.

No, I fully understood your comment. I called you out on it. You're the one who resorted to name calling, belittling and personal attacks; I'm just refusing to let you slide on a lie. Call it what you like, but it's still a lie.

A lie? I said “it’s not impossible, it’s improbable and implausible”, which is what almost everyone is saying.

That you think that’s a lie (not to mention don’t understand that it does allow for the possibility of the purported exploit being true) only reinforces my opinion that you’re a conceited conspiracy theorist nut job.

The lie is the one you tell yourself about "scientific method" and assuming that because we haven't proven a thing, it isn't so. Go work with some people who ACTUALLY DO SCIENCE for a living; I have. They'll tell you the same thing I just told you; true scientific method is the polar opposite of assuming ANYTHING.

But hey, feel free to call me names, disparage my intellect, whatever helps you sleep at night. It's obvious you have little more to offer than insult.

Cheers,

mnem
*not before I finish my coffee*

[mnementh]

I think he means 'lie' in the sense of self-deception, not in the sense of dishonesty.

And please, lighten up on the insulting tone it's uncalled for and unseemly. I count both of you as two of the generally saner and more considered voices on here, most of the time.

Don't make me dust off my collection of gnome/chocolate/cuckoo-clock jokes. 

Well f***... evidently I managed to click through and not see this before posting my own response. Thanks for reminding us to try and be respectful; that is certainly something in short supply these days.

After reviewing my own response, I still stand by what I've said; while couched in retaliatory tone, I feel it sums up my POV pretty concisely. I said it, I own it.

I'll do better to temper my annoyance in the future; we certainly don't want Cerebus to have to get his conversational cutlery. 

mnem
*Namaste*

[tooki]

You did not understand my comment. You’re going off on another condescending cuckoo conspiracy theorist “I’m more aware than you!” rant/sermon, and about evil and your idea of “scientific method” and whatnot, and meanwhile you don’t even realize what I did (and didn’t) say.

No need to reply, I’ve added you to my ignore list. I don’t need the temptation of getting into arguments with conspiracy nuts.

No, I fully understood your comment. I called you out on it. You're the one who resorted to name calling, belittling and personal attacks; I'm just refusing to let you slide on a lie. Call it what you like, but it's still a lie.

A lie? I said “it’s not impossible, it’s improbable and implausible”, which is what almost everyone is saying.

That you think that’s a lie (not to mention don’t understand that it does allow for the possibility of the purported exploit being true) only reinforces my opinion that you’re a conceited conspiracy theorist nut job.

The lie is the one you tell yourself about "scientific method" and assuming that because we haven't proven a thing, it isn't so. Go work with some people who ACTUALLY DO SCIENCE for a living; I have. They'll tell you the same thing I just told you; true scientific method is the polar opposite of assuming ANYTHING.

But hey, feel free to call me names, disparage my intellect, whatever helps you sleep at night. It's obvious you have little more to offer than insult.

Cheers,

mnem
*not before I finish my coffee*

Dude. Go back and read the thread. You are accusing me of saying things I DID NOT SAY. I think you didn’t realize, in the heat of responding, that I’m not the person who said anything about scientific method or anything!! Next to each post is the username; please go find the posts you responded to regarding scientific method. You’ll find they’re not from me.

So stop painting me as an anti-science nut and condescendingly trying to explain the scientific method to me.

[mnementh]

The lie is the one you tell yourself about "scientific method" and assuming that because we haven't proven a thing, it isn't so. Go work with some people who ACTUALLY DO SCIENCE for a living; I have. They'll tell you the same thing I just told you; true scientific method is the polar opposite of assuming ANYTHING.

But hey, feel free to call me names, disparage my intellect, whatever helps you sleep at night. It's obvious you have little more to offer than insult.

Cheers,

mnem
*not before I finish my coffee*

Dude. Go back and read the thread. You are accusing me of saying things I DID NOT SAY. I think you didn’t realize, in the heat of responding, that I’m not the person who said anything about scientific method or anything!! Next to each post is the username; please go find the posts you responded to regarding scientific method. You’ll find they’re not from me.

So stop painting me as an anti-science nut and condescendingly trying to explain the scientific method to me.

YOU are the only one here painting anyone as any kind of nut. Period. Any "nuttiness" you're feeling is either projection or your own creation.

*Goes back and rereads*

A'aight... you didn't say the stuff about "scientific method"; that was MK14. But you DID step into our charlie-foxtrot without warning in support of his POV, and you were willfully personally insulting, while I tried very hard to stick to the philosophical points and keep personal attack out of it.

Sorry, but you earned your inclusion in that response.

Cheers,

mnem
*Lunch-ify*

[Cerebus]

...But you DID step into our charlie-foxtrot without warning in support of his POV, ...

This joke continued from another topic/thread...

Maxim 54. The best way to win a one-on-one fight is to be the third to arrive.

[bd139]

https://youtu.be/SimMH3Q6zLw

Subtitle: being right on the internet.

[mnementh]

...But you DID step into our charlie-foxtrot without warning in support of his POV, ...

This joke continued from another topic/thread...

Maxim 54. The best way to win a one-on-one fight is to be the third to arrive.

*Thankful for the distraction* Context:



*Getting on with my life*

mnem
"Maxim 12: A soft answer turneth away wrath. Once wrath is looking the other way, shoot it in the head."

[Cerebus]

If we're going all Schlock Mercenary let's at least have one germane to the subject under discussion:

[mnementh]

Ifni save us...  "MAXIM 53: The intel you've got is never the intel you want."

mnem
"Fly, you fools!!!"

[MK14]

that was MK14

WARNING: This entire post is a JOKE. My attempt at humor.

Actually, maybe you have a point with all the conspiracy theories.

I've been arguing with you the last 2 pages of posts, and I haven't even needed to post anything in this thread, to accomplish it. 

Also, all these secret, special handshaking messages, with cryptic words/comics/pictures. There seems to be some kind of conversation going on, but my lack of knowledge/interest, in the right circles, means I largely don't understand what you are talking about.

I will assume that you have noticed that the forum server has been hacked by secret Chinese hackers. Hell bent on stopping Dave's EEVblog, from stopping the modern advancing Chinese army of Electronics Experts, from taking over the world.
Hence the secret/hidden messages, and handshakes.

Here's mine:



WARNING: This entire post is a JOKE. My attempt at humor.

[tooki]

The lie is the one you tell yourself about "scientific method" and assuming that because we haven't proven a thing, it isn't so. Go work with some people who ACTUALLY DO SCIENCE for a living; I have. They'll tell you the same thing I just told you; true scientific method is the polar opposite of assuming ANYTHING.

But hey, feel free to call me names, disparage my intellect, whatever helps you sleep at night. It's obvious you have little more to offer than insult.

Cheers,

mnem
*not before I finish my coffee*

Dude. Go back and read the thread. You are accusing me of saying things I DID NOT SAY. I think you didn’t realize, in the heat of responding, that I’m not the person who said anything about scientific method or anything!! Next to each post is the username; please go find the posts you responded to regarding scientific method. You’ll find they’re not from me.

So stop painting me as an anti-science nut and condescendingly trying to explain the scientific method to me.

YOU are the only one here painting anyone as any kind of nut. Period. Any "nuttiness" you're feeling is either projection or your own creation.

*Goes back and rereads*

A'aight... you didn't say the stuff about "scientific method"; that was MK14. But you DID step into our charlie-foxtrot without warning in support of his POV, and you were willfully personally insulting, while I tried very hard to stick to the philosophical points and keep personal attack out of it.

Sorry, but you earned your inclusion in that response.

Cheers,

mnem
*Lunch-ify*

1. I’m not “painting” you as a nut. You’re doing a jolly good job of that yourself. Your many comments on this thread read like the crazy ramblings on the back (and front, and sides) of a Dr. Bronner’s bottle.
2. This is a public forum. I don’t need your permission (or “prior warning”) to reply to a discussion, never mind one I joined long before. Not that I feel any obligation to receive education on how to work the internet from someone who can’t even follow how a web forum works, and replies to people based on things they did not say.
3. You STILL did not understand my original reply. If you are seeing it as purely support for Mk14’s POV, then you haven’t understood it. My comment neither refuted nor confirmed either side: it simply explained that the Bloomberg story isn’t plausible. I didn’t say it’s impossible, and I didn’t say we should stop studying it!
4. Learn. To. Read. Carefully. You are repeatedly responding to arguments that are simply not there. You cannot interpolate things and then respond to your own interpolations. Just respond to what’s actually there.
5. Oh, you think you haven’t been employing personal attacks? You’ve been using them since long before my first reply to you. That you used them so liberally is why I have not held back with you. You forfeited the right to complain about name calling long ago.

[donotdespisethesnake]

So now argument in favor of Bloomberg's story comes down to "There must be something out there, I just know it!" conspiracy theories and comic strips. 

I agree though there should be an investigation. An investigation into how and why Bloomberg perpetrated a huge fraud on the public. Was it investor fraud? Journalistic overreach in pursuit of "scoop of the year"? Getting a fat bonus for moving markets? Got played by some political operatives? It's worth finding out.

In the US the press get carte blanche to print whatever lies they like, you know, "Elvis found on the Moon" etc. No one cares about tabloid stories, but Bloomberg really abuse their position and sully the reputation of serious news outlets with unfounded stories. I guess if every one else is publishing fake news, why shouldn't we...

Even the FBI, who have a policy of never confirming or denying, effectively said "the story is bunk". The NSA guy says we never heard anything about it, some of the sources Bloomberg used have said they were misquoted.

[mnementh]

that was MK14

Actually, maybe you have a point with all the conspiracy theories.

I've been arguing with you the last 2 pages of posts, and I haven't even needed to post anything in this thread, to accomplish it. 

Also, all these secret, special handshaking messages, with cryptic words/comics/pictures. There seems to be some kind of conversation going on, but my lack of knowledge/interest, in the right circles, means I largely don't understand what you are talking about.

I will assume that you have noticed that the forum server has been hacked by secret Chinese hackers. Hell bent on stopping Dave's EEVblog, from stopping the modern advancing Chinese army of Electronics Experts, from taking over the world.
Hence the secret/hidden messages, and handshakes.

Here's mine:

Oh, FFS... it's like trying to talk philosophy with a rooster. 

My argument is NOT that this for sure happened... my argument is that SOMETHING happened, and that this is the place to discuss it as if it had happened, even if only theoretically. This is THE PLACE for that kind of tangential discussion; by dint of its title this place has been set aside for such discussion so we aren't bothering the "normal" folk with it. If you don't LIKE that tangential discussion, you can go somewhere ELSE. Or ignore it when the rest of us talk about it.

When those of us who are interested in that discussion have it, we're not having it behind your back, we're simply not expressly including you because you've made it abundantly clear you're not interested.

I'm sorry you felt left out; just as happens at a dinner party in the real world, we were having our own conversation for a moment at the common table. I for one needed the diversion from the incessant nitpicking.   

Here, I'll throw you a bone; clearly we have SOME common ground in our appreciation of Randall's sense of humor:



There... fairsies?

1. I’m not “painting” you as a nut. You’re doing a jolly good job of that yourself. Your many comments on this thread read like the crazy ramblings on the back (and front, and sides) of a Dr. Bronner’s bottle.
2. This is a public forum. I don’t need your permission (or “prior warning”) to reply to a discussion, never mind one I joined long before. Not that I feel any obligation to receive education on how to work the internet from someone who can’t even follow how a web forum works, and replies to people based on things they did not say.
3. You STILL did not understand my original reply. If you are seeing it as purely support for Mk14’s POV, then you haven’t understood it. My comment neither refuted nor confirmed either side: it simply explained that the Bloomberg story isn’t plausible. I didn’t say it’s impossible, and I didn’t say we should stop studying it!
4. Learn. To. Read. Carefully. You are repeatedly responding to arguments that are simply not there. You cannot interpolate things and then respond to your own interpolations. Just respond to what’s actually there.
5. Oh, you think you haven’t been employing personal attacks? You’ve been using them since long before my first reply to you. That you used them so liberally is why I have not held back with you. You forfeited the right to complain about name calling long ago.

I have enough trouble dealing with the offenses I'm guilty of, and those I've already admitted to and tried to be fair. I refuse to be held responsible for the ones you've imagined. What you're saying amounts to this:

"I didn't shove the stick in the hornets nest, that was another guy. I was just passing by and tripped over it a little. Those hornets have no right to be pissed off at me!" 

You led out of the gate calling me names and speaking in a belittling manner, and you did so while interjecting into a mostly polite disagreement between two other people. Not only that, but you continue to do so, all the while blaming me for your belittling tone.  Get over yourself, man.

You earned that response; suck it up buttercup. <~~~ See that right there? THAT was me being deliberately offensive, because you pissed me off.

And I'm NOT going to apologize for it, because you earned that one too. 


mnem
Wait for it... wait for it...

[MK14]

it's like trying to talk philosophy with a rooster. 

SORRY!
I seem to have not explained myself very well.
The entire post, I made, which you are referring to.
Was, and is meant to be a complete JOKE.

Unfortunately, I have messed up, and not made it clear enough.
That is why I put the  in it. (Although, there was only one, and it was only pointing to the first bit, not the entire post).

My fault, I should have realized that it could be misunderstood, that it was HUMOR.

EDIT:
On re-reading my post, just before this one. I can see and understand, why it can be misunderstood. I have put in big warnings, to hopefully avoid such misunderstandings in the future.

[mnementh]

So now argument in favor of Bloomberg's story comes down to "There must be something out there, I just know it!" conspiracy theories and comic strips. 

I agree though there should be an investigation. An investigation into how and why Bloomberg perpetrated a huge fraud on the public. Was it investor fraud? Journalistic overreach in pursuit of "scoop of the year"? Getting a fat bonus for moving markets? Got played by some political operatives? It's worth finding out.

In the US the press get carte blanche to print whatever lies they like, you know, "Elvis found on the Moon" etc. No one cares about tabloid stories, but Bloomberg really abuse their position and sully the reputation of serious news outlets with unfounded stories. I guess if every one else is publishing fake news, why shouldn't we...

Even the FBI, who have a policy of never confirming or denying, effectively said "the story is bunk". The NSA guy says we never heard anything about it, some of the sources Bloomberg used have said they were misquoted.

If you look at Bloomberg's history, there is every reason to believe this story is the result of serious journalism. They have a well-earned rep for eschewing tabloid content.

So for the sake of argument, lets say that Bloomberg really has these sources, that they really brought something shocking (real or not) to their attention, and that Bloomberg did in fact commit due diligence in the preparation of this article. They have everything to lose and little to gain by changing to tabloid format this late in the game; the market is already saturated with both tabloid journalism and real evil aplenty.

The questions that come to my mind are... was it a simple "comedy of errors" type chain of misinterpreted data? Was it the result of someone or several someones deliberately misleading them to create the story? Or, and admittedly confidence is not high on this one, but it must be considered, what if the story was all or in part 100% factual and has been successfully whitewashed by one business, government or external faction or another?

My opinion is that it is most likely it is a blend of two or more of the above... and probably a sprinkling of X-Files type joojoo just for flavor.

I think they discovered SOMETHING. I also think that something was damaging to one or more of the enterprise players involved, or that possibly it came very close to something deemed by TPTB to be too close to something REALLY damaging, and that possibly there was some government pressure at play. POSSIBLY.

How the whole story... not just the article, but the story of the story... has unfolded over the last couple weeks just reeks of exactly that kind of ham-fisted circle-jerk media manipulation.

That's all I've got; because that's the only answer that satisfies all the questions I have. It's not much, and yeah, it's pretty conspiracy theory... but the alternative theory that Bloomberg deliberately concocted this whole thing knowing that it would likely destroy them... is actually far more "out there" than any of those theories.

But hey, all I've got to go on is a hunch; based on the fact I've lived long enough and paid attention to have seen just this kind of skullduggery happen over and over and over again.

mnem
Hmmmm... discussion. Yummmm.

[mnementh]

it's like trying to talk philosophy with a rooster. 

SORRY!
I seem to have not explained myself very well.
The entire post, I made, which you are referring to.
Was, and is meant to be a complete JOKE.

Unfortunately, I have messed up, and not made it clear enough.
That is why I put the  in it. (Although, there was only one, and it was only pointing to the first bit, not the entire post).

My fault, I should have realized that it could be misunderstood, that it was HUMOR.

EDIT:
On re-reading my post, just before this one. I can see and understand, why it can be misunderstood. I have put in big warnings, to hopefully avoid such misunderstandings in the future.

Nope... I got the humor. I even snortled between clenched teeth at seeing "Footprints" in this context. 

I did, in fact, go back and completely rewrite my response to you in much less aggro tone at realizing the olive branch you offered by means of humor.

I guess my reciprocal olive branch; "Duty Calls" was not taken as intended either. Mea culpa. I'm sorry, it was the best I could manage at the time; I'm not the best at compartmentalizing. I was still just a bit raw, and you repeating the "conspiracy theory" trigger word didn't help.

There's a difference, and I tried to make this point a while back, between trying to understand the grain of truth behind all the crazy conspiracy stuff and swallowing it whole. The way you distill that is by discussion, which was all I was defending, and I was feeling too beleaguered to be that outwardly jovial, I guess.

The truth is that what is really going on in most of American politics and Enterprise and everything intertwined in the two (of which the subject of this thread is just one tiny little aspect) for the last 4 decades reads like a potboiler spy novel; if we presented it as a reality TV show, nobody would watch it.

Maybe my cynicism has reached critical mass, I dunno.

mnem
*Namaste*

[mikeselectricstuff]

So now argument in favor of Bloomberg's story comes down to "There must be something out there, I just know it!" conspiracy theories and comic strips. 

I agree though there should be an investigation. An investigation into how and why Bloomberg perpetrated a huge fraud on the public. Was it investor fraud? Journalistic overreach in pursuit of "scoop of the year"? Getting a fat bonus for moving markets? Got played by some political operatives? It's worth finding out.

In the US the press get carte blanche to print whatever lies they like, you know, "Elvis found on the Moon" etc. No one cares about tabloid stories, but Bloomberg really abuse their position and sully the reputation of serious news outlets with unfounded stories. I guess if every one else is publishing fake news, why shouldn't we...

Even the FBI, who have a policy of never confirming or denying, effectively said "the story is bunk". The NSA guy says we never heard anything about it, some of the sources Bloomberg used have said they were misquoted.

If you look at Bloomberg's history, there is every reason to believe this story is the result of serious journalism. They have a well-earned rep for eschewing tabloid content.

So for the sake of argument, lets say that Bloomberg really has these sources, that they really brought something shocking (real or not) to their attention, and that Bloomberg did in fact commit due diligence in the preparation of this article. They have everything to lose and little to gain by changing to tabloid format this late in the game; the market is already saturated with both tabloid journalism and real evil aplenty.

The questions that come to my mind are... was it a simple "comedy of errors" type chain of misinterpreted data? Was it the result of someone or several someones deliberately misleading them to create the story? Or, and admittedly confidence is not high on this one, but it must be considered, what if the story was all or in part 100% factual and has been successfully whitewashed by one business, government or external faction or another?

My opinion is that it is most likely it is a blend of two or more of the above... and probably a sprinkling of X-Files type joojoo just for flavor.

I think they discovered SOMETHING. I also think that something was damaging to one or more of the enterprise players involved, or that possibly it came very close to something deemed by TPTB to be too close to something REALLY damaging, and that possibly there was some government pressure at play. POSSIBLY.

How the whole story... not just the article, but the story of the story... has unfolded over the last couple weeks just reeks of exactly that kind of ham-fisted circle-jerk media manipulation.

That's all I've got; because that's the only answer that satisfies all the questions I have. It's not much, and yeah, it's pretty conspiracy theory... but the alternative theory that Bloomberg deliberately concocted this whole thing knowing that it would likely destroy them... is actually far more "out there" than any of those theories.

But hey, all I've got to go on is a hunch; based on the fact I've lived long enough and paid attention to have seen just this kind of skullduggery happen over and over and over again.

mnem
Hmmmm... discussion. Yummmm.

How could an organisation as big as Bloomberg be stupid enough to publish without something as basic as a photo of the alleged "implant" ?
If this was real there would be photos. What reason would someone discovering this have to not release a photo ?
Quite literally, "Nothing to see here"

[MK14]

Maybe my cynicism has reached critical mass, I dunno.

I'm sorry if I seem too hostile, when people start mentioning (conspiracy ..) stuff. Some of which, might be right.

But, a silly (conspiracy ..) theory, can be created, in some 60 seconds, while not thinking straight, but it might take experts, many hours, days, weeks or even longer to robustly disprove those theories.
Which are likely to either be ignored or disbelieved by the creator(s) of the (conspiracy ..) theories.
Or they will just carry on, and 60 seconds later, produce even more (conspiracy ..) stuff.

MK14 saying about this:
"Conspiracy theories are like foolish people, who spend seconds starting crazy fires, which take firefighters, days to put out"