Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

US EPA Enforcement and Compliance on Apple Fabrication

dropbox.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 331 posts

Re: US EPA Enforcement and Compliance on Apple Fabrication

#241

Post by ClumsyPilot »

cjk2 wrote: post #46

While I don't doubt the facts and EPA analysis around the case and the measurements, how many other local residents reported this and are fighting it?

Let’s imagine you suddenly feel bad at 3 am, how would you know you should file a complaint against a specific lab run by a specific company? How would you even know it exists?

You would go to the doctor and get some random incorrect advise. If you go online and check air quality you would not find anything obviously alarming. Maybe you decide you have asthma and move out of the city.

I personally had a condition with an obvious cause that took me 4 years to pinpoint and doctors were bloody useless.

If, hypothetically, I was being poisoned by some random industrial activity a mile away, I would never know

Re: US EPA Enforcement and Compliance on Apple Fabrication

#242

Post by noptd »

azinman2 wrote: post #236
buro9 wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> and I would very strongly doubt any new claims made And I would very strongly doubt the word of a People Team member as the conclusive evidence of any lying. People Team are there to reduce the liability for the company, the company in this case are the very company in question for alleged environmental issues. What actually happens vs what a trained People Team member knows to document are seldom the same thing, a…

I've seen non-redacted versions of what she's shared on Twitter versus her redacted versions which tell a completely different story, and she puts her own spin on it that is detached from reality. I've seen her lie directly on at least one occasion (and play the victim card about it), and when combined with everything else makes me trust her 0%.

Any sources to link?

Re: US EPA Enforcement and Compliance on Apple Fabrication

#243

Post by AceJohnny2 »

dang wrote: post #223
AceJohnny2 wrote: post #34

I wonder why this post was flagged.

Users flagged it. We can only guess why users flag things, but there are nearly always clues to that in the comments. Now that the threads have all been merged, I think it's fairly clear what the arguments are.

yep, thanks dang!

Re: US EPA Enforcement and Compliance on Apple Fabrication

#244

Post by RecycledEle »

murderfs wrote: post #55

The author of this has been on a crusade against Apple for years, stemming from an incident that was probably hypochondria. They've outright lied about multiple incidents (see https://twitter.com/shantinix/status/1433297575914971136 ), and I would very strongly doubt any new claims made. For example, a spot check of one of the claims has them currently saying "Still, Gjovik’s limited testing returned results showing…

The EPA ruling against Apple casts doubt on your ad hominem accusations.

Re: US EPA Enforcement and Compliance on Apple Fabrication

#245

Post by dang »

therein wrote: post #230
dang wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can't post like this to HN, and we ban accounts that do, so please don't. If someone else is wrong, you are of course welcome to respond with correct information and better arguments. If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules when posting here, we'd appreciate it. Edit: you crossed into personal attack in at least one other recent comment ( https://news.ycombin…

I understand dang but I worked at Apple. There is way more to this than these snarky replies are making you think. They aren't just herp derp we think Apple is despotic. You know the audience of this website. Why does Apple get this response from your highly educated tech audience? Perhaps we have personal experience we cannot speak more openly about due to NDAs but would still like to let out a quip.

If your comment is motivated by substantive personal experience, that's great, but then the thing to do is to share some of the information that your view is based on. You know it, but the rest of us don't. A snarky swipe with no information is just as bad a comment whether it's posted by someone with relevant experience or not.

If you don't share relevant information, it may as well not exist. If you do share it, you should follow the site guidelines and edit out snark and swipes, so your substantive comment has a better chance of persuading the reader, and a lesser chance of provoking (f)lame responses from others.

> Why does Apple get this response from your highly educated tech audience?

It gets the entire spectrum of responses. You're noticing and assigning meaning to the responses you dislike, because that's what we all do: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que....

> Perhaps we have personal experience we cannot speak more openly about due to NDAs but would still like to let out a quip.

It looks like you can speak openly enough about it to say more than just "Hello Apple Global Security", which is the run-of-the-mill internet stuff we're trying to avoid on this site. If that's what you mean by letting out a quip, please don't.

Re: US EPA Enforcement and Compliance on Apple Fabrication

#246

Post by Workaccount2 »

synctext wrote: post #119
cjk2 wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well it would require more data which is the problem, and something I outlined elsewhere. Is she the only person complaining? The case is put forward as if that is the case. If that is the case then there is little evidence to discard the null hypothesis that there's nothing wrong and either alternate hypothesis that it's the Apple facility or the previously contaminated site seem very unlikely.

> many confounding factors Indeed. May 2022 TechCruch [0] about sexism at workplace: "Privacy watchdogs in Europe are considering a complaint against Apple made by a former employee, Ashley Gjøvik, who alleges the company fired her after she raised a number of concerns, internally and publicly, including over the safety of the workplace." "At the time, Gjøvik had been placed on administrative leave by Apple after rai…

She better hope she wins one of her lawsuits because she probably will never get a career job again.

Re: US EPA Enforcement and Compliance on Apple Fabrication

#247

Post by joe_the_user »

user_7832 wrote: post #51

> (...) Apple engineer “accidently” turning on lethal fluorine gas. Similarly, another incident, the TEOS leak, was root caused to an Apple engineer accidently installing the gas for a tool “backwards.” Further, less than two weeks following the April 30 2021 phosphine leak, Apple’s manifests included sixty pounds of “vacuum filters contaminated with glass dust,” implying there may have also been a phosphine explosio…

Has the linked article changed? It is currently an EPA report that doesn't seem to contain the quoted text?

It's a bit weird that most of discussion seems focused on the person sharing the report rather than it's contents.

Edit: OK, dang's comment sort of clears things up but the "thread consolidation" really results in some confusion.

Re: US EPA Enforcement and Compliance on Apple Fabrication

#248

Post by therein »

dang wrote: post #245
therein wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I understand dang but I worked at Apple. There is way more to this than these snarky replies are making you think. They aren't just herp derp we think Apple is despotic. You know the audience of this website. Why does Apple get this response from your highly educated tech audience? Perhaps we have personal experience we cannot speak more openly about due to NDAs but would still like to let out a quip.

If your comment is motivated by substantive personal experience, that's great, but then the thing to do is to share some of the information that your view is based on. You know it, but the rest of us don't. A snarky swipe with no information is just as bad a comment whether it's posted by someone with relevant experience or not. If you don't share relevant information, it may as well not exist. If you do share it, yo…

> It looks like you can speak openly enough about it to say more than just "Hello Apple Global Security", which is the run-of-the-mill internet stuff we're trying to avoid on this site. If that's what you mean by letting out a quip, please don't.

> If your comment is motivated by substantive personal experience, that's great, but then the thing to do is to share some of the information that your view is based on. You know it, but the rest of us don't.

I didn't know Ashley by name but after having watched her video last night from the Mastadon link on this thread, I now remember I had seen her earlier posts. Either way she comes off extremely legitimate, I spent at least an hour reviewing the things she posted yesterday. It is impressive if anything the data she has collected.

Calling her a hypochondriac like one of the GP replies did, trying to convince the reader to brush this whole thing away as someone who is squeeze money out of Apple. Some of the response on this thread is immediately recognizable by people who have gone through it themselves as Apple Global Security damage control.

Re: US EPA Enforcement and Compliance on Apple Fabrication

#249

Post by ClumsyPilot »

PROgrammerTHREE wrote: post #175
Infinity315 wrote: post #136

There is a disappointing amount of character slander rather than refutation of the author's claims happening on this thread. The foremost trustworthy party is the EPA. Note, I am not a lawyer or anyone who could professionally give an opinion on this.* The most egregious violation the author purports Apple did is the illegal venting of hazardous chemicals. IMHO, the most plausible evidence supporting the author's cla…

The problem is that the EPA report doesn't say what she says it does. 1. Apple doesn't do chip fab at Scott Blvd. They did R&D for Titan and microLED screens and were part of the layoffs in April. 2. The EPA says that they didn't have permits WITH THE EPA, but were permitted with California and Santa Clara County/City. 3. She says the carbon filters weren't changed, not the EPA. 4. She says Apple said materials weren…

Why are you so keen to whitewash potential mishandling of dangerous chemicals and poisoning of the public? You do not appear to have any more understanding of the situation that a layman. Your points to do not sound convincing and do not engage with the issue at all.

> How is it this woman was nearly killed, while the employees who WORK in the building are perfectly healthy

This is quite ignorant of how this actually works. How is it possible that Union carbide plant in Bhopal killed 16,000 people in one day but most employees were perfectly healthy?

> the next door businesses have no sick employees other thousands of residents in the apartment building are also not sick?

You are obviously wrong, have you ever tried going around your neighbourhood and asking people: "hey, there has been consistent release of dangerous chemicals, is anyone sick?". That's a population of thousands of people, dozens of people will have bronchitis, asthma, inflammation, cancer, god knows what. How do you know if it is related to the chemical pollution?

Perhaps dozens of people have felt symptoms and went to the doctor, and maybe they were diagnosed with Asthma or allergies or some other erroneous disease. Maybe they moved to the countryside by now, believing themselves to be ill.

Unless someone knocks on the door, polls the residents, takes blood samples and tests them at an independent lab, conducts statistical analysis of all the medical records, etc. you have no moral right to assert this.

Re: US EPA Enforcement and Compliance on Apple Fabrication

#250

Post by mynameisvlad »

RecycledEle wrote: post #244
murderfs wrote: post #55

The author of this has been on a crusade against Apple for years, stemming from an incident that was probably hypochondria. They've outright lied about multiple incidents (see https://twitter.com/shantinix/status/1433297575914971136 ), and I would very strongly doubt any new claims made. For example, a spot check of one of the claims has them currently saying "Still, Gjovik’s limited testing returned results showing…

The EPA ruling against Apple casts doubt on your ad hominem accusations.

Did you read the report and specifically the areas of concern the EPA had? They seem minor at best. More than half of them are mislabeled containers that are too broad.
Post reply on HN