I find it hard to believe that such a well informed crowd with health dose of skepticism as HN can be outright dismissal of that article just because no evidence has been revealed, and because experts have dismissed the story so far.

A favorite story on HN, this listening device was not detected for seven years, despite experts extensively looking for it [0]

[0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Thing_(listening_device)

As a side note, we tend to judge an article if it goes against our belief, but are willing to give it a pass otherwise. Case in point, plenty of Bloomberg's articles about Boeing or climate change being discussed but don't think I've seen anyone questioning their premise or evidence. I'm guilty of this as well.

If you’re going to make a claim like that, you need to make it in a way that experts can verify: absent follow-up or reporting from other, independent, outlets, there’s no good reason for me to take it seriously. And, given Supermicro’s connections with Taiwan, there’s plenty of reason for me to suspect something’s up.

I wonder if someone planted that story just to provide something for people to complain about.

Bloomberg could choose to start earning back some trust at their leisure by retracting the article.

They haven't; they still stand by it. Since they consider the rest of their output just as trustworthy as that article, I'll take them at their word.

The FT was under intense pressure for years to retract their stories about Wirecard. Journalists even got sued by the German regulator. And most disagreed with FT enough that stock prices remained high for years. They never retracted a single article and trusted their sources and journalists more than the public.

In the end they turned out to be right but it took more than 5 years since the first article. I believe we should consider that Bloomberg could fall into a similar category.