dp141

Amazing to me how much impassioned defence there is of HFT. I assume a lot of the HN readership works in HFT.

Of course, it's not usually something so blatant. My point is that your intention is to surmise as correctly as possible. Usually PRs pick up on fastidious detail to discredit whole story. Mostly these are genuine mistakes that are inconsequential to overall narrative and that could've easily been clarified.

*EDITED for clarification.

True, there are 100 per cent people on vendettas hatchet jobs but more reputable publishers are better at curtailing the ill-will of a single writer.

Having worked as a journalist previously, it's funny how this is often almost impossible in practice. Most of the time subjects don't want to comment, ignore, or responses are handled by a PR person who doesn't provide adequate comment. Then, when you do publish and you get X detail wrong they blast you, or the subject themselves bemoans how they were never given the opportunity to comment. Not that journalists are above reproach but I can't tell you how many times people got annoyed about not being able to to tell their side of the story or how X or Y was misrepresented when they were given countless ops to do put forward their own case.

Attitude toward journalists these days, partly because of more professionalised PR is hugely adversarial rather than co-operative. Anyway /rant.

This is the general trend in Apple in making almost everything difficult to service directly to make case more easily manufactured lighter. Course when something goes wrong...