301–310 of 331 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I do not think it is fair/honest to focus on the mundane findings, then use that to debase the entire report.
all of the findings are mundane
As a chemist who has actually done micro fabrication work, this reads to me like a classic case of a non-chemistry company trying to do chemistry R&D and finding out it’s a lot more complicated to follow all the rules than they thought it would be. Robust chemical safety systems (both equipment, procedures, and employees) are expensive to implement and maintain, and they don’t scale downward easily. Companies doing s…
They don't do chip fabrication there, they make device screens: https://www.siliconvalley.com/2018/03/19/apple-secretly-deve...
> "EPA observed that the sign posted on Solvent Tool 8-113 (B(4)) in Apple’s B(4) Area needs to be updated to remove the chemical “B(4)” from the posted sign, which according to Apple is no longer being used in the facility’s semiconductor process."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
I don't like Apple secrecy and after what they did during the wage survey, I don't trust anyone on the People team or in Security. But that doesn't make Ashley right or credible. She was a bully to other women in nearly every situation like everyone else in leadership. She baited us into confiding in her about our issues with management and the People team and then she ratted us out to the People team and we were all harassed into deciding whether or not we wanted a coerced investigation into our issues. What's worse is that Ashley convinced us that the People/Security teams were spying on us, when really it was her using us as some kind of leverage trying to squeeze them for money. She uses us still in her evidence in all her litigation against Apple. She never asked us for consent, she doesn't care. Just like when she worked with us, we were just things to be collected and used for her to get ahead.
> (...) 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…
I think not because all the concentrations were pretty low. The problem that Ashley faced was that she was exposed 24/7. But to me it looks like almost all of the gas concentrations would have been considered an A-OK working environment for up to 8 hours of exposure. And while it's not wrong that fluorine is a lethal gas, it is heavily used in many industries and in medicine. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluorine#In…
She never faced to industrial chemical exposure, let alone 24/7. She didn't work in that building. She worked as a program manager for a software engineering team in an office building in Sunnyvale.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isn't a bigger factor here, in addition to their careless attitude, the fact that they've started manufacturing semiconductors on land specifically only zoned for light industrial use, when, at least per her article, fabricating semiconductors is work that is required to be zoned heavy industrial? The issue being, of course, the proximity of residential to a "light industrial" vs. "heavy industrial" plot sure changes…
> they've started manufacturing semiconductors on land specifically only zoned for light industrial use This looks strange indeed, I thought light industry is like bicycle repair and large bakeries, definitely wouldn’t expect a chemical plant
Regardless of the merits in general why would Apple do anything chemical in a residential area at all? They’re not exactly poor and land a little bit out is usually cheaper
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> "One thing is for sure, it's not a silicon fab." Why do you say that? Yes, the EPA report seems to be redacted to obscure what they're actually doing there. But there are multiple reports, some from Apple employees, that refer to it as a being some sort of small scale, "skunkworks" silicon fab.
According to numerous sources, it's microLED display screens that are made there: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-03-19/apple-is-... https://www.siliconvalley.com/2018/03/19/apple-secretly-deve...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
With regards to 1 and 2: This is inconsequential to what the EPA reported. It doesn't matter whether they do R&D for plushies or whatever, fact is Apple was under accounting their waste stream. > She says the carbon filters weren't changed, not the EPA. I'm going by what the EPA says and not what she says. > How is it this woman was nearly killed, while the employees who WORK in the building are perfectly healthy, th…
Just for some background, the "nearly killed" thing is new. She said at first she was getting light-headed a lot and over the last 4 years it has become "almost killed." I don't think that any of this is as serious as even you are making it out to be, though I understand I misunderstood the carbon boxes thing.
At the risk of sounding snarky, but it seems like you have a recurring pattern of just not reading what I've typed. First you've misunderstood the carbon filter and now. It's like I say X and you've heard Y and Z.