While you may be correct in the sense that, in a public acquisition statement, people should be inferring enormous context and not taking anything said at face value.
It's simultaneously true that this is the farthest thing from effective, honest, and clear communication. Reading between the lines here is required precisely because we all know that any acquisition statements made are, at best heavily coded, if not completely just fluff.
You can recognize that and still get angry that it's par for the course for such things to be not just devoid of useful information, but often actively deceiving.
Tbf, and in support of your broader point, there's no reading between the lines, because genuine intent is indistinguishable from deception with this kind of stuff, because the latter imitates the former. There's only expecting the worst, and being only occasionally wrong.
You'd be surprised, even by navigating in this comment section. I guess they continue to do it because it works. Or because they no longer care about public sentiment.
You're not wrong, but how screwed up is it that we expect leadership at companies we spend most of our waking time on to bullshit through their teeth at the people that make the damn thing work in the first place?
