Just the fact that the author chose to call Michael Burry's well thought out premise "silly" - tells you most of what you need to know about what is being pitched in the article. I've never seen Burry say anything that qualified as silly, even when a premise of his doesn't play out as dramatically as predicted. Silly is entirely contrary to his personality and analysis, it's attempting to lead the reader and argue via ridicule (where did we see that before?).