I think a lot of people don't understand how anonymous sourcing works in jounalism.

It's hard. I'm instinctively inclined to believe this story, but from first principles, why should I trust that Axios has adequately vetted this source? All I know about them is that lots of people in my circles send me their articles, I've never seen or conducted a review of their journalistic practices.

Obviously thinking about it this way would cause me to miss or disbelieve a lot of true stories, but it doesn't seem right to say I should trust every outlet I see widely posted either.

I know what it means and I agree it's probably an exec. The issue is that the premise - "Microsoft Corporation didn't know thing X at point in time Y" - is essentially unverifiable gossip, yet is presented here as fact

Believe it or don't, newspapers report on things which cannot be immediately verified all the time. Get over it.

> In journalist speak, that means "credible person I know who would get fired if I said their name."

those are some bold beliefs given the overall honesty in journalism and benefits to being first to publish.

There's a lot to criticize about Axios, but having high-profile connections is like the entire reason they exist. They don't make stuff up.