Great, wire shark is for network snooping.
Or just packet analysis. I’ve used it multiple times to troubleshoot problems at work. Absolutely doesn’t mean anything nefarious.
Disclaimer: I’m a software engineer
You can install our site as a web app on your iOS device by utilizing the Add to Home Screen feature in Safari. Please see this thread for more details on this.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Great, wire shark is for network snooping.
No, it's not.Please don't. It's important to educate bystanders
I don’t believe anything the guy says. He gave FALSE info to the media, which directly contradicts this particular statement. He broke an NDA, he put malware on other employees’ computers, he’s already changed his story once before and on it goes.
He’s a thief with no honor. Not credible.
An ex-Tesla employee just went on record formally claiming you bribed him & he sent you valuable Tesla IP in exchange. Is this true?
If someone here wanted to dig in on this further, there is some remnants of code and other stuff scattered around using the name 'martytripp'.
Timestamps on most of it show creation either last year or the year before.
Follow the link at the bottom of this tweet for one example.
Bonnie Norman on Twitter
All this is making Tesla look worse.
Not all about network traffic: Disqus Profile - martytripp
Linette Lopez is a professional journalist
Which one? I'm not impressed by degrees in any case; Jared Kushner has a degree from Harvard, to use an extreme example.with a degree from a prestigious journalism program
Business Insider is run by an actual criminal who is permanently banned from the securities industry for securities fraud -- Henry Blodget.who's been working for Business Insider for 7 years.
Yes, that's an interesting question. Musk is scrupulous in his backward-looking statements, so I believe Musk when he says that this statement from Tripp is "on the record" and asks Lopez whether it is true. (Since Tripp has been changing his story, who knows whether Tripp's claim is true.)I wonder where and when Tripp stated that Lopez paid him or promised to pay him
When the source says you bribed him, it's a valid question. If the journalist finds it insulting, she can always say "No, of course not, he's lying".The question "did you bribe a source" is insulting to every professional journalists.
I choose to believe that publications like...
... don't **** around with money or advertisers getting anywhere close to their journalists.
- The Wall Street Journal
- Business Insider
- Market Watch
- The New York Times
I mean, the WSJ took down Theranos while the publication's owner had a massive stake in the company.
The idea that there's some grand conspiracy that includes "big media" is just pure Trumpism.
"The First Amendment allows anyone who owns a printing press or newspaper to lie with impunity. "
In a bizarre decision adopting Fox’s argument, an appellate court, dominated by former corporate lawyers, reversed the lower court’s finding, holding that the FCC ban on lying did not qualify as a “law, rule or regulation,” since it had been created over the years in decisions by FCC judges and never promulgated in a rulemaking process.
This decision effectively made it legal for networks to lie in news reports to please their advertisers.
In 2014, I was involved in the creation of a documentary critical of big Pharma, I asked him for an opportunity to discuss the subject on Neal Cavuto’s talk show. His answer was a hard “No!”
“Bobby,” he told me, “during non-election years, the bulk of news division revenue comes from pharmaceutical advertisers. I would fire any Fox host who allowed you on their show. And if I didn’t Rupert [Murdoch, the network owner] would be on the phone with me in 10 minutes demanding scalps.”
I'll bet she doesn't want to answer because 'It's complicated'When the source says you bribed him, it's a valid question. If the journalist finds it insulting, she can always say "No, of course not, he's lying".
Apperently Lopez has admitted to using Tripp as a source. And, as many have noted, strangely failed to deny that she paid Tripp.Well, at this point I actually hope he's able to prove the connection between Tripp, Linette and Chanos.
Linette has admitted to using him as a primary source.I don't give Tripp an ounce of credibility. I agree that he seems like an idiot.
Why? For Linette, see above; we know she's relying on a source which you give no credibility to, so why do you give her credibility?But I do give Business Insider and Linette credibility.
It's instructive to realize that no link was ever proven in a court of law between Chanos and the agents he hired to destroy Fairfax. No one really thinks about it now, but the lawsuit Fairfax filed against Chanos was actually dismissed some time later. The purpose of the lawsuit, to get Chanos to leave Fairfax alone, was ultimately successful, but Chanos was never actually proven to have engaged in any wrongdoing.Apperently Lopez has admitted to using Tripp as a source. And, as many have noted, strangely failed to deny that she paid Tripp.
A link to Chanos will be harder to prove; he uses intermediaries.
I don't give Tripp an ounce of credibility. I agree that he seems like an idiot.
But I do give Business Insider and Linette credibility. Business Insider isn't a random blog like electrek or insideevs - this is a massive website, one of the most viewed in the world.
And the Editor-in-Chief of Business Insider has put the entire publication's credibility on the line by standing up for Linette.
The idea that a reporter from Business Insider paid a source is just wrong. It's wrong on several levels. Lorette would know better given her background and training at arguably the best undergraduate journalism program. And Business Insider wouldn't allow it.
-------------------------------------------------------
If Tesla actually had evidence that Linette paid Tripp, why haven't they released it? Why don't they just outright state the accusation rather than masking it in questions?
If they don't have evidence, then what the hell is Elon doing on twitter?
It's instructive to realize that no link was ever proven in a court of law between Chanos and the agents he hired to destroy Fairfax. No one really thinks about it now, but the lawsuit Fairfax filed against Chanos was actually dismissed some time later. The purpose of the lawsuit, to get Chanos to leave Fairfax alone, was ultimately successful, but Chanos was never actually proven to have engaged in any wrongdoing.