Comment by jrflowers
3 months ago
>Isn't the point that they intentionally glossed over ("We did not model what would happen if data center demand collapses and Meta cannot secure a new tenant. This scenario was excluded for methodological convenience.") a pretty important one?
It is a joke. This is a humor post on a comedy blog. This substack is not actually a bond rating agency.
It's not good humor though.
This blog is in the "no man's land" of satire v. serious. Doesn't pick a lane and people get confused, but it's not funny, "bit the onion" confused.
Poe's law applies, it's deadpan humor, finance Borat
IMHO it is very well executed, pushes the right buttons, and ultimately raises the question of financial realism (if the market acts like it's true is it true? how far is it from something that you can use to pay your taxes with? and so on)
I don't get how this is pushing buttons that mainstream business outlets haven't openly ridiculed in non-opinion pieces.
It's a satire blog that's confusing or misleading people (See top HN comments.) and not getting strong reactions.
Poe's law is when someone's being sarcastic and they add a smirk emoji to avoid/seek -/+ votes. Feels different here.
5 replies →
I sent it to my friend that works in corporate accounting and she thought the post was hilarious, so I guess the intended audience is pretty narrow? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
That aside, I don’t think that this post by a made up bond rating agency called the Flexible Standards Group that uses phrases like “unbothered by reality” “downgrade when the shit hits the fan” is particularly difficult to parse as being humor (or at the very least not an actual bond rating)
Look at all of the critical parsing here on HN of nonsensical premises, e.g., "we skipped model scenarios of default".
It also has an eerie tinge of AI generated satire wrapping a real article.
Can't have nice things anymore...
1 reply →