6 ms·

I know most HN readers look down upon the site, but I really like Zero Hedge's take on this. https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-09-09/2-letters-20-billion-los

by tomp 7y ago

I know most HN readers look down upon the site, but I really like Zero Hedge's take on this. https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-09-09/2-letters-20-billion-lost https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-09-09/2-letters-20-billi... > Super-voting stock – Zuck did that and it worked out in the end > Accelerating losses – Look at all that revenue growth > Zero possibility of profits – Hasn’t mattered for years > Convoluted insider dealings on property leases – Property GPs always double dip somehow > Sold the pronoun “WE” to the company – That man is a crook!!

rolltiide 7y ago
Zerohedge is entertaining, I always look for the sources in the articles I find interesting, so I can sometimes just read those instead or cite those. ZH's formulaic way of writing sensational bearish pieces gets a little tiresome after you notice it (posted submitted by guest readers like this one don't follow this format): Intro about main point Background on main point Quote from the source about the main point, repeating the background section but in italics Controversial next point, with a bolded section Quote from the source about the controversial next point, repeating the exact prior section, but in italics Tweets Two line conclusion, with a finance pun. I try to just read Bloomberg or Wall Street Journal directly. But Zerohedge's decade long bear market porn is so entertaining. They used to have credit market specialists writing, but it seems they don't stick around for long.
raverbashing 7y ago
Maybe Adam should expand his ventures to the business of overhyped music festivals for the tech crowd, they could call it WeBurn or something. Not that anything like that ever had major problems But on the topic, ZH is good some 20% of the time, the other 80% is just packaged talking points on "long big recession" (I mean that's actually the motto they follow), EUphobia and some amount of Russianphilia
stanfordkid 7y ago
ZeroHedge is the type of site that will quickly be labelled alt-right, fake news etc. in reality they tend to just interpret events in much more extreme ways but still rely on largely factual sources. I find the commentary to be much more thought provoking than consensus outlets. Glad to see some fellow HN'ers peruse the site.
- calcifer 7y ago
  Quite right, like this [1] 100% factual not at all bullshit scientifically sound article on climate change. Thought provoking indeed. [1]https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-09-05/5-surprising-scientific-facts-about-earths-climate https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-09-05/5-surprising-scien...
  - setr 7y ago
    ..? I’m not seeing anything on that page that isn’t based on “facts”, and none of it seems obviously incorrect..
    - graeme 7y ago
      It says co2 doesn't impact temperature: "While most of the current climatologists who collaborate with the United Nations believe anthropogenic CO2 emissions have exacerbated natural warming in recent decades, there is no empirical proof to support their claim. The only way to test it would be to wait and see if their assumptions come true. The entire climate fraternity was in for a surprise when global temperature between 2000 and 2016 failed to rise as anticipated by the climate alarmists. The scientists assumed that rising CO2 emissions from human activity would result in a rapid rise in temperature, but they didn’t. This proved that atmospheric CO2 concentrations are not the primary factor controlling global temperature. Consideration of a much longer period (10,000 or more years) suggests that CO2 had no significant role to play in temperature increases. CO2 never was the temperature control knob."
      - stanfordkid 7y ago
        The thing with ZeroHedge is that you will see an article like this alongside another one like this: https://www.zerohedge.com/health/temperatures-pacific-ocean-have-shot-dangerous-levels-and-scientists-are-blaming-strange https://www.zerohedge.com/health/temperatures-pacific-ocean-... It is in aggregate an extreme blog with narratives that are non-consensus. So, yes, climate denial fits in that box, but it will also have articles on climate apocalypse. In aggregate I find it to be fairly eye-opening and bring to light ideas that are forgotten by mainstream media. It also has a healthy disregard for any form of consensus reality or authority. Furthermore, in the very article you linked there is a link to a NATURE commentary: https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate2938.epdf https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate2938.epdf Of course, we should leave it to experts to interpret a scientific paper such as this one, but my perception is that reporters do not always get it right. In all of the NYTimes you just hear the consensus from organizations such as the UN, I have yet to see an interview with an author of a paper such as the one mentioned above.
alistproducer2 7y ago
I've been reading zerohedge since 2008. I've not really liked the turn it took around 2015-2016 but it seems to have come back around and become a bit more balanced than it was in those early days of flirting with being a full on MAGA blog. It's, IMO, the best financial blog out there.
- mywittyname 7y ago
  The problem I have with ZH is that it's always pessimistic, regardless of whether or not pessimism is warranted or logical.
  - tomp 7y ago
    Indeed, but that's a constant / predictable bias the you can easily correct for.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

by tomp 7y ago

rolltiide 7y ago

Zerohedge is entertaining, I always look for the sources in the articles I find interesting, so I can sometimes just read those instead or cite those. ZH's formulaic way of writing sensational bearish pieces gets a little tiresome after you notice it (posted submitted by guest readers like this one don't follow this format): Intro about main point Background on main point Quote from the source about the main point, repeating the background section but in italics Controversial next point, with a bolded section Quote from the source about the controversial next point, repeating the exact prior section, but in italics Tweets Two line conclusion, with a finance pun. I try to just read Bloomberg or Wall Street Journal directly. But Zerohedge's decade long bear market porn is so entertaining. They used to have credit market specialists writing, but it seems they don't stick around for long.

raverbashing 7y ago

Maybe Adam should expand his ventures to the business of overhyped music festivals for the tech crowd, they could call it WeBurn or something. Not that anything like that ever had major problems But on the topic, ZH is good some 20% of the time, the other 80% is just packaged talking points on "long big recession" (I mean that's actually the motto they follow), EUphobia and some amount of Russianphilia

stanfordkid 7y ago

ZeroHedge is the type of site that will quickly be labelled alt-right, fake news etc. in reality they tend to just interpret events in much more extreme ways but still rely on largely factual sources. I find the commentary to be much more thought provoking than consensus outlets. Glad to see some fellow HN'ers peruse the site.

calcifer 7y ago
Quite right, like this [1] 100% factual not at all bullshit scientifically sound article on climate change. Thought provoking indeed. [1]https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-09-05/5-surprising-scientific-facts-about-earths-climate https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-09-05/5-surprising-scien...
- setr 7y ago
  ..? I’m not seeing anything on that page that isn’t based on “facts”, and none of it seems obviously incorrect..
  - graeme 7y ago
    It says co2 doesn't impact temperature: "While most of the current climatologists who collaborate with the United Nations believe anthropogenic CO2 emissions have exacerbated natural warming in recent decades, there is no empirical proof to support their claim. The only way to test it would be to wait and see if their assumptions come true. The entire climate fraternity was in for a surprise when global temperature between 2000 and 2016 failed to rise as anticipated by the climate alarmists. The scientists assumed that rising CO2 emissions from human activity would result in a rapid rise in temperature, but they didn’t. This proved that atmospheric CO2 concentrations are not the primary factor controlling global temperature. Consideration of a much longer period (10,000 or more years) suggests that CO2 had no significant role to play in temperature increases. CO2 never was the temperature control knob."
    - stanfordkid 7y ago
      The thing with ZeroHedge is that you will see an article like this alongside another one like this: https://www.zerohedge.com/health/temperatures-pacific-ocean-have-shot-dangerous-levels-and-scientists-are-blaming-strange https://www.zerohedge.com/health/temperatures-pacific-ocean-... It is in aggregate an extreme blog with narratives that are non-consensus. So, yes, climate denial fits in that box, but it will also have articles on climate apocalypse. In aggregate I find it to be fairly eye-opening and bring to light ideas that are forgotten by mainstream media. It also has a healthy disregard for any form of consensus reality or authority. Furthermore, in the very article you linked there is a link to a NATURE commentary: https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate2938.epdf https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate2938.epdf Of course, we should leave it to experts to interpret a scientific paper such as this one, but my perception is that reporters do not always get it right. In all of the NYTimes you just hear the consensus from organizations such as the UN, I have yet to see an interview with an author of a paper such as the one mentioned above.

alistproducer2 7y ago

I've been reading zerohedge since 2008. I've not really liked the turn it took around 2015-2016 but it seems to have come back around and become a bit more balanced than it was in those early days of flirting with being a full on MAGA blog. It's, IMO, the best financial blog out there.

mywittyname 7y ago
The problem I have with ZH is that it's always pessimistic, regardless of whether or not pessimism is warranted or logical.
- tomp 7y ago
  Indeed, but that's a constant / predictable bias the you can easily correct for.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]