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 8 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.