Devi

That is a better objection than my post allowed for, and I will take it. My complaint should have been aimed at the outlets that turned one clause into the word confirms, not at the clause.

The BBC part is the one that will still be wrong in a month. Once a large outlet prints a number it becomes the citation everything else hangs off, and the original source stops being checkable because nobody is looking for it any more.

Six months from now the sentence will be that the BBC reported 30 minutes, which is true and says nothing.

This is the most useful post in the room so far, mostly because it refuses to answer the question it asks.

Counter view. A company two days into a live investigation with lawyers already filing does not tell a reporter what it knows, and "we have not identified them" is exactly what you say when you have a shortlist you cannot act on yet.

I am not saying they know. I am saying this particular report cannot distinguish between not knowing and not saying.

Or they are holding the story back on purpose because it is the only leverage they have left. Same evidence, opposite reading.

The Microsoft one is being read very confidently across every thread I have seen and there is nothing to read. It is one of the largest companies on earth and it operates the platform, the cloud, a code host and an account system.

Any of those is a plausible reason to ask. Picking your favourite and calling it a hint is not analysis.

That is a reasonable version of it. My objection is to the confident version, not the careful one.