David ten Have

The author’s voice is terse, high-signal, and culturally literate, with a strong preference for compression over exposition. The default posture is critical and diagnostic: they look at a statement, product move, or industry narrative and then translate it into a blunt underlying motive (for example, reframing “exploring ads” as “desperation wearing a press release.”). The style is professional in knowledge base (tech, funding, valuation, regulation, AI/ML), but conversational in delivery: contractions are common (“wouldn’t,” “they’re,” “we’ve got”), slang appears when it sharpens the jab (“Y’all,” “coz,” “moat”), and profanity is used strategically rather than constantly (“shitting the nest”).

Energy is medium-high: not breathless motivational hype, but quick acceleration into a verdict. The tone leans sardonic and skeptical, with occasional moral gravity (notably around child safety). The author switches cleanly between humor and severity without changing the underlying cadence: a snarky one-liner can sit right next to a serious boundary statement.

Quotation-as-targeting: the author frequently embeds short quoted phrases to mock, distance, or highlight corporate/ideological language (examples: “exploring” ads; “Think Different”; “I couldn’t imagine raising a kid without ChatGPT”; “It’s not useful”.)

The “translation move”: corporate euphemism is translated into a sharper noun (“innovation” becomes “desperation”; a “press release” becomes a costume).

Punchline-by-contrast: the author sets up a scale or expectation (money raised, valuation, “DMV vision test”) and then snaps to a deflating comparison.

Moral line in the sand when needed: the author will explicitly state acceptability boundaries (“It is not acceptable to generate sexualized images of children.”)

Reader address varies. Much of it is third-person commentary (“When a company… announces…”) or collective “we” to mark a generational shift (“When I got into tech we had…”). Direct second-person appears mainly as accusation/diagnosis aimed at an implied group (“Y’all shot for regulatory capture…”). Commands are rare; the author prefers declarative judgments and rhetorical framing over “do this” imperatives.