Again, however, the data in the article does not show that. The article is attempting to argue this point with facts (hard data), while not presenting said hard data. It's especially egregious because of the naming of specific companies.
It's a false accusation. The numbers have no meaning. Is that not obviously the point of contention?
It's one thing to say, this is aggregate in the industry (and still be misleading), or say group by MAG7, or AI companies, or some sector. It's another to name Amazon as the ringleader when the data don't show that.
