Yeah, I shouldn’t have commented. That post ended up in my hot/all feed and I didn’t really look at the community. I was frankly quite confused as to what’s up with these people until I saw the upvoted Russian propaganda comment which cleared things up quite a bit.

I made the mistake of commenting on this post where people clearly think that the Hamas are the good guys and have every right to do what they do. Apologies for linking to it.

Haha yeah, I get the same feeling. You definitely shouldn’t rely on it, but at least the bot isn’t trying to click bait you by intentionally hinting at something more exciting than actually happened.

The headline here makes it sound like he’s sold it off entirely, that it‘s most likely just a paper shuffling is lost. But if you want to summarize the actual content, most people who didn’t bother reading the article won’t read a second, potentially worse, article if it’s 75% of the first one. Make it one concise paragraph and people might actually find out a bit more detail.

If you bring 75% of the original article length to an English teacher and call it a TLDR, I’m pretty sure you’d fail the exercise.

Here’s a shorter summary:

Donald Trump sold his Florida Mar-a-Lago residence on August 4, but there’s speculation he transferred ownership to his son. The property was listed for $422 million and is now owned by a company linked to his eldest son. This sale timing has raised questions. Trump faces legal issues related to the 2020 election but remains popular among Republicans in polls.

I’m not at all against long articles, I read plenty. I’m just saying imo this isn’t a precise enough summary.

I saw someone propose that there should be a min post length for the summary bot, because one of the summaries was just as long as the article. It’s nice to have it inline, but still.

In this case it’s 75% of the original article and it also introduces the risk of getting something wrong or leaving something important out. It’s shortening and rewriting it, but it’s not summarizing it.

At least let the first paragraph be a summary of the entire article and then you can read on and go into more detail if you want.

Not much of a summary if you ask me. Might as well read the entire article.

Haha fair point ^^

The OP from the post you shared apparently didn’t read the article close enough, they got it wrong there (or at least it’s not worded clearly enough). So not entirely on you.

Also not true, the msn article states they didn’t loose money, they just didn’t “win” as much as shareholders were hoping for. Quoting from your link:

Quarterly revenue climbed 2.7% from a year earlier to $8.2 billion, shy of analyst forecasts of $8.3 billion.

More expensive isn’t really less convenient in that sense, it’s just as easy as before to watch Netflix. You just have to pay more (or watch ads).

That’s the reason why Netflix and Spotify won over piracy. Convenience, not price.

Still sucks though.

Not what the article states:

According to Netflix, revenue is up in every region where paid sharing was introduced, and sign-ups have exceeded cancelations. The company saw revenue growth of 2.7 percent year over year.

Edit: I think you‘re right about them loosing subs in areas of the crackdown and winning even more in new areas. It’s not 100% clear in this article (but apparently more so in Reuters‘).

Green energy is just better