Two important things happened today: First, many companies that help people talk to each other or use the internet made more money than expected. Second, a big company called Apple also made more money than expected and people are happy about it. This made the Nasdaq, which is a list of these types of companies, go up by 200 points. Other parts of the world also did well, but some didn't do as good. Read from source...

- The article title is misleading as it implies a direct causal relationship between Nasdaq rising and Apple posting upbeat earnings. This is not necessarily true, as there could be other factors influencing the stock market performance. A more accurate title would be "Nasdaq Rises And Apple Posts Upbeat Earnings".
- The article uses vague terms such as "better-than-expected" and "record" without providing any quantitative or comparative data to support these claims. For example, how much higher were the earnings and revenue compared to the previous year or the analysts' estimates? How do these numbers compare to Apple's historical performance or its competitors?
- The article does not mention any potential risks or challenges that Apple may face in the future, such as regulatory issues, competition, supply chain disruptions, etc. This creates an overly optimistic and unrealistic impression of Apple's prospects.
- The article briefly mentions some commodity prices without explaining their significance or relevance to the stock market or the economy. For example, why did oil and gold prices change on that day? How do these changes affect investor sentiment or consumer behavior?
- The article spends a lot of time reporting the performance of different regional markets and sectors, but does not provide any context or analysis for why they are moving in certain directions. For example, what are the main drivers behind the rise or fall of communication services or real estate shares? How do these trends compare to historical patterns or market expectations?
- The article includes some irrelevant or outdated information, such as the $5.5 million public offering by an unnamed company. This does not seem to have any connection to the main topic of the article and may confuse or distract readers who are looking for relevant and timely data.