I’ll see your pedantry and raise you ... more pedantry. The sentence may be a bit clunky, but there’s nothing grammatically wrong with it. And you’re leaving out the first sentence, which frames the comparison:

> ASML gross revenue was 28B€ in 2024, and their net income was 7.5B€. While 1.3B€ (the amount ASML invested in this 1.7B€ fund raise) is not pocket change, it is also an amount that ASML can not afford to lose.

Worded another way:

> ASML had a healthy margin of 7.5B€ on 28B€ in gross revenue in 2024. 1.3B€ isn’t a huge chunk of this, relatively speaking, but *it’s also an amount that ASML can’t afford to lose.*

Still clunky. Still not wrong.

▲

kgwgk 6 days ago | parent | next [-]

> there’s nothing grammatically wrong with it.

There was nothing in the comment that you reply to suggesting that it was grammatically wrong: "The sentence is framed like a contrast but then instead it says the same thing twice." If anything it suggests it's semantically wrong.

▲

ath92 6 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

You replaced “1.3B is not pocket change” with “1.3B€ isn’t a huge chunk of this”. Those have opposite meanings.

▲

paulddraper 6 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Either incorrectly worded, or very poorly worded.

It's a open question as to which one.

▲

yieldcrv 6 days ago | parent [-]

language exists to convey a shared concept, you don’t think the sentence means “it’s a lot of money for ASML to risk losing?” and wouldn’t have been mentioned if it meant inconsequential or small?

	▲	paulddraper 5 days ago \| parent [-]
		Based on context + structure, I believe the sentence has a stray "not" -- the amount is not small but it is an affordable loss for ASML.