Incredibly just this week, CNN relied on Palo Alto Networks research in its story on North Korean IT workers, without acknowledging what Bloomberg revealed 2 weeks ago: that PANW were victims of the exact infiltration they are paid by clients to avoid.

Not a big SCOOP guy but this ones got some SCOOPS… scattered across 8,000 words (gift link): www.bloomberg.com/news/feature...

One of the wildest twists for me (spoiler): A large, publicly traded cybersecurity firm made experts available to me to explain the DPRK IT worker phenomenon. Then I found out they’d neglected to mention one fact: The firm *itself* had inadvertently employed nine North Koreans.

Chapman had been recruited as a “laptop farmer,” paid to illegally maintain computers for dozens of North Korean agents with IT jobs across American industries. When the FBI moved to take down the network, she became the target. Over the past few months, she’s told me her story.

In 2020, Christina Chapman got a DM from a stranger on LinkedIn. What she thought was a door to a new career led instead into a web of intrigue stretching from North Korea into hundreds of American companies, including some of the most valuable on the planet.

Wait Mike it worked I used it. CAG's are my only follow.

Have we reflected at all on how Twitter was mass-liquifying brains well before Musk? How it incentivized otherwise smart, talented people to devote countless hours to honing their dunking, outrage farming, and shitposting skills? I get why they want a new spot to use them, but why do the rest of us?

Twitter was always a pyramid scheme with attention as its currency. Coming here feels like saying "hey everybody check out this new venture, same returns we used to get on the old one, no downside!" Instead of "damn, got conned, lost a fortune, gotta be smarter."

I'm a believer in "You better belong to the times that you’re in," as Roger Angell said. But re-creating the conditions that produced a loathsome situation feels either pollyanna or masochistic.

Has anyone considered that the bottomless capacity for moral superiority and flyby cruelty found there were unleashed not (just) by the owner or the bots or the block rules or the moderation... but by the very nature and incentives of the product itself? Which this one mimics in nearly every way?

Have we reflected at all on how Twitter was mass-liquifying brains well before Musk? How it incentivized otherwise smart, talented people to devote countless hours to honing their dunking, outrage farming, and shitposting skills? I get why they want a new spot to use them, but why do the rest of us?

Twitter was always a pyramid scheme with attention as its currency. Coming here feels like saying "hey everybody check out this new venture, same returns we used to get on the old one, no downside!" Instead of "damn, got conned, lost a fortune, gotta be smarter."