the former would create a double negative
the latter changes the meaning
it’s correct the first way, ASML would be harmed by losing that money
“cannot afford to lose”
the latter changes the meaning
it’s correct the first way, ASML would be harmed by losing that money
“cannot afford to lose”
> ASML gross revenue was 28B€ in 2024, and their net income was 7.5B€. While 1.3B€ (the amount ASML invested in this 1.7B€ fund raise) is not pocket change, it is also an amount that ASML can not afford to lose.
Worded another way:
> ASML had a healthy margin of 7.5B€ on 28B€ in gross revenue in 2024. 1.3B€ isn’t a huge chunk of this, relatively speaking, but *it’s also an amount that ASML can’t afford to lose.*
Still clunky. Still not wrong.
There was nothing in the comment that you reply to suggesting that it was grammatically wrong: "The sentence is framed like a contrast but then instead it says the same thing twice." If anything it suggests it's semantically wrong.
It's a open question as to which one.