If you agree that people are clicking to laugh at the ludicrous claim of the author, why then do you say;
The conclusion I’ve drawn from the data you’re about to see, is that we’re all looking for the ‘hacks’. The shortcuts. The non-obvious variables we can change to have a directly causal effect on helping us to get the things we really, really want: raising investment, getting MRR (and as you’re about to see) getting a date!
Surely, as you apparently agree, the conclusion is that people aren't looking for hacks, but rather they're looking for idiots to laugh at. The only causal effect going on here is that people who tweet stupid links cause people to laugh at them.
Isn't there another possibility, that people are looking for hacks, but they're also very good at detecting link-bait, and even then they still click it for the lulz?
The conclusion I’ve drawn from the data you’re about to see, is that we’re all looking for the ‘hacks’. The shortcuts. The non-obvious variables we can change to have a directly causal effect on helping us to get the things we really, really want: raising investment, getting MRR (and as you’re about to see) getting a date!
Surely, as you apparently agree, the conclusion is that people aren't looking for hacks, but rather they're looking for idiots to laugh at. The only causal effect going on here is that people who tweet stupid links cause people to laugh at them.