Earlier quoted context omitted.
Given that not all information is public in this scenario, there is no choice but to construct theories that are plausible regardless of the gaps in evidence; such is the basic nature of investing and economics both. Is your objection that available evidence was excluded that you consider to be materially relevant, or that theories were constructed when we don’t have the complete story, or..?
The problem isn’t theorising itself, investing is full of it. The issue is when speculation is presented with the tone and certainty of established fact. The article doesn’t merely offer possibilities in light of missing data; it states mechanisms and outcomes as though the evidence for them is already in hand. So the objection isn’t to building a model, but to blurring the line between assumption and demonstration,…
> Here is my take
'take' is a fancy word for 'opinionated interpretation', implying opinion.
> even just connecting the dots myself (with the help of Gemini)
If an AI was involved in producing this writing, it could be whole-cloth fiction, so I certainly would not attribute factualness to anything in the entire post that I didn't have an independent source for. Others would differ, but even setting aside this particular point, there are so many more.
> it feels like their biggest customers
This does not particularly give confidence that they're stating facts. If they were stating facts, they would say simply "their biggest customers are" without the weakening-disclaimer language of "it feels like" or "I suspect that" or etc.
> My personal read?
This is explicitly a rhetorical device indicating personal interpretation of the three pieces of data listed above, cited from their published financials. Obviously one should double-check the financials to confirm that "Gemini" didn't make shit up, but either these three bulleted-list items are factually erroneous, debatable interpretations, or factually correct. This can be specifically addressed if desired.
> I didn't discover this next part
The author is summarizing someone else's work here. I've read other authors on the same topic as well. This is not, as I would say, 'primary source' material, and if their interpretation is bogus, it's on me for relying on it (cc Gemini involvement) rather than tracking down the original sources (which I did, earlier).
> they look more like
This is a normal personal interpretation signifier.
> my guess is
This is an explicit theorising signifier.
And so, having done that exercise and read through the entire post, I fail to identify claims made by the author that are "presented with the tone and certainty of established fact". The author presents zero facts, as far as I can tell, in a plain reading. Am I missing some specific instance where they make a factual claim that isn't unambiguously weakened by the repeated contextual 'this is opinion, this is interpretation, referring to the work of others, published financials' clues that are present throughout, regardless of how one interprets the stated use of Gemini?
This is, I think, at the core of where I'm confused about your opinions here today. You've stated opinions about the work — and yes, even a neutral summary is opinionated! — but even this far deep in the discussion, you still haven't referred to actual segments of the actual work to explain how you reached your opinion. When my reply is confusion — i.e., "I don't follow, could you refer to specific quotes from the post?" to each of your objections: "when speculation is presented", "it states mechanisms and outcomes", "blurring the line between assumption and demonstration", and "glossing over the range of alternative explanations" — then I certainly empathize with others who refuse to respond. I've tried my very best to give you the benefit of doubt, but I'm just lost at this point; your opinion is unsupported general statements with zero specifics, and armchair dentistry is not most people's idea of fun when it comes to getting someone to explain how they formed an opinion (especially in today's world where "an AI generated these confusingly-general statements" is a high-probability outcome).
Perhaps an example will help convey the confusion.
> The issue is when speculation is presented with the tone and certainty of established fact. The article doesn’t merely offer possibilities in light of missing data; it states mechanisms and outcomes as though the evidence for them is already in hand. So the objection isn’t to building a model, but to blurring the line between assumption and demonstration, and to glossing over the range of alternative explanations that the same incomplete information could support.
Regarding one of your claims in your comment, I agree with your interpretation of the post itself, but I do not share your negative opinion of that interpretation.
My above paragraph is completely serious. I mean every word of it, and it's not a constructed example. It's an actual response I had to your post. How would you respond? Most people would ask, 'Which claim led you to that interpretation?', and that's precisely the question that I'm left with for each of your interpretations here today. That's why I chose it as an example: it's a content-free opinion, that carries only judgment but not content or meaning. Without the essential core of what I'm disagreeing with, what use is it to you that I disagree at all? What useful contribution have I made?
I hope this will help set you on a more productive course with the HN community for future posts.