Folks in the comments here begging ChatGPT to teach them how to read

Aurornis 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

This article is poorly written. It’s so desperate to be clever and edgy that it’s hard to get the facts out of it.

ChatGPT isn’t really a solution because the source is both low quality and has questionable motives. Going to any of the other good articles on the subject that have been linked in this comment section is much better.

▲

parliament32 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

It's well written for its target audience, people who are used to reading financial analyses.

	▲	walletdrainer 7 minutes ago \| parent \| next [-]
		While I’ve seen a plenty of silly reports from big bank analysts, they usually have the advantage of not coming across like complete idiots when saying things like this > We assign a preliminary A+ rating to the notes, one notch below Meta’s issuer credit rating, It’s hard to get away with that when the report is attributed to a company and person which don’t seem to exist, hosted on some randos substack. Wording like that works way better when it comes from a sender with an address ending with @bigbank.com Of course, the latter parts of the post (Disclaimer and Limitation of Liability) do reveal pretty definitively that this is obviously not intended to be a serious report.
	▲	Aurornis an hour ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Hard disagree. I read a lot of well-written financial analyses and this isn’t it at all. The target audience is people who want to be angry at Meta and think that they’re smarter than finance people.

▲

venturecruelty 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Don't say "I'm critical of AI", say "I have questionable motives"!

▲

bdangubic 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

this is the future of human-written articles - they will obligatory be written like this as 99% of article comments on HN these days is “oh, this is AI written.” :)

▲

turtlesdown11 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

It's actually written quite well, you just have to understand the underlying financial documents and methodology.

Things that are hard to read because you lack context is not the same as poor writing.

▲

Aurornis an hour ago | parent [-]

No it’s not. It’s sarcastic, snarky, sneery content that appeals to a certain group.

The actual subject matter has already been covered well by good writers like Matt Levine, WSJ, and others.

	▲	turtlesdown11 30 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		> No it’s not. It’s sarcastic, snarky, sneery content that appeals to a certain group. What on earth does your second sentence have to do with the quality of the writing? Try just a bit to separate your emotions from the text.

▲

rs186 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

It is not the reader's fault if the article is unreadable in the first place.

Not to mention that asking help to explain a text is extremely common. I can read English, but I have never read a US supreme court ruling. There are much better ways for me to understand those rulings to me as a non-lawyer.

	▲	tyre 4 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Many SCOTUS opinions, especially the major ones, are very readable! The justices and clerks are excellent writers. The most publicly notable cases (on things like abortion, gerrymandering, gun control, etc.) aren’t so tied down in complex precedent or laws the average person is unfamiliar with. Although, even some of those (like, for me, issues around Native American sovereignty or maritime law) are quite readable as well.
	▲	turtlesdown11 13 minutes ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		> I can read English, but I have never read a US supreme court ruling. There are much better ways for me to understand those rulings to me as a non-lawyer. Having admitted to never having read a SCOTUS ruling, how can you then proclaim there are better ways for you to understand? How could you possibly make that assertion if you've never read a SCOTUS ruling?

▲

epistasis 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The difficulty understanding this piece comes from lack of knowledge about finance and ratings, not from an inability to read. The blog assumes a large amount of financial knowledge which is not common among the HN audience.

	▲	walletdrainer 28 minutes ago \| parent \| next [-]
		This whole blog reeks of WSB, pretty sure the target audience is not people with a large amount of financial knowledge.
	▲	crote 4 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		It seems fairly understandable even without financial knowledge? 1. Facebook creates a shell company. 2. The shell company borrows billions of dollars, and builds a data center. 3. Facebook leases the data center. 4. The fact that it is technically only a four-year lease with only one possible tenant can conveniently be ignored, as Facebook assumes essentially all possible risks. The shell company could only possibly lose money if Facebook itself goes under, so the lenders can treat the loan as just as reliable as Facebook itself. 5. Because Facebook technically only has a four-year lease, it can pretend it doesn't actually control the shell company: after all, it can always just decide not to renew the lease. The fact that is assumes essentially all possible risks can conveniently be ignored, so Facebook can treat it as a separate entity and doesn't have to treat the debt as its own. So the lenders are happy because there's no real risk to them, and Facebook is happy because they can pretend a $27B loan doesn't exist. It's a win-win, except for the part where they are lying to their shareholders about not taking on a $27B loan.

▲

pyvpx 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

It is so hopelessly depressing. I was wrapt reading it from start to finish and thoroughly enjoyed it as few recent articles at length have been.

And then going to the comments, excitedly no less, to find…this?

Jfc :’(