As long as it really is true and continues to hold true for all the big players involved then things should be OK.
Though it does imply that there's got to be a long-term source of returns which is 100x richer than Nvidia is now, and that source is willing & able to give up 100x what Nvidia can afford to spend now, or where else is the return actually going to come from?
OTOH if the leverage turns out to be unsustainable, or never was quite as extreme as estimated, then adjustments will have to occur, whether that amounts to carefully planned compensation for any shortcomings, or more abrupt developments which relieve undue pressure.
Well, Nvidia started out as a manufacturer first & foremost.
Maybe I'm in the middle of the road :)
Seems like economy, scale, velocity, and even "critical mass" are related in some way, but not the same at all.
I would say it's quite possible that economies of scale can go from positive to negative without much warning.
I think it's most sustainable financially when the underlying "economy" is what drives the resulting scale-up, which usually does occur in phases or stages where each successful milestone informs the next campaign more realistically than you can get any other way.
As market demand grows beyond baseline sustainability it becomes less costly to serve each additional customer this way.
The opposite effect could occur if meeting lofty scaling goals requires an ever increasing cost of customer acquisition beyond the point of unmet initial pending demand.
When the scaling process itself is what drives the activity without being limited by the actual buying power of the ultimate consumers at any one point, things can really get ahead of themselves. Accounting practices can be so diverse that the only way to be sure whether scaling ahead of the curve was actually "economical" is after liquidation ends up occurring.
Unfortunately, liquidation of one kind or another is more likely when the scale is based on hyperbolic dreams rather than more reasonably optimistic estimates. But who's to say which is which, and the continuum between them is blurry enough without any highly interested parties trying to muddy the waters even further. Who even knows if they've given it as much thought as it deserves, or if more clear-headed thinking could be the primary factor given what there is to work with :\
Tracking wildlife is too much work because they don't voluntarily carry electronic tracking devices, and it often requires tranquiliztion or being subdued in some other way beforehand.
Plus the small number that do participate don't have credit card numbers and other financially exploitable data in their devices like most of the humans do.
I would think it might sometimes depend on what state of mind those were in when they were writing the scripture or prophesizing the dogma that persisted or was enforced afterward.
Using actual "performance-enhancing" substances would be expected to result in a wildly different outcome compared to performance-degrading materials.
Plasticity may or may not be the intended objective in any case.
Well they started the project quite boldly, stuck to their detailed plan, accomplished milestone after milestone, now they're done.
It is a glorious monument to unleashed ambition, dogged determination, and focused commitment to follow through against all odds no matter what.
In the middle of the stinkin' desert no less, it's an amazing transformation when you look at it, they really all came together and made something out of nothing.
Not just a little something, but something more extravagant than most people could imagine.
Hate does seem to be on the rise across the board, even for fairly trivial things. About all one person can do is try to set a non-hate example.
Plus provide a corrective upvote from time to time especially when a knee-jerk robot is suspected, or a maybe it's an actual person where you can't tell the difference.
Sometimes it gets so bad that people hate it when you try to keep a decent article from plummeting under the depths of a sea of slop.
I think it's well-recognized that robots are more prevalent than ever and it doesn't seem to be making things better at this point.
That's great leverage.
As long as it really is true and continues to hold true for all the big players involved then things should be OK.
Though it does imply that there's got to be a long-term source of returns which is 100x richer than Nvidia is now, and that source is willing & able to give up 100x what Nvidia can afford to spend now, or where else is the return actually going to come from?
OTOH if the leverage turns out to be unsustainable, or never was quite as extreme as estimated, then adjustments will have to occur, whether that amounts to carefully planned compensation for any shortcomings, or more abrupt developments which relieve undue pressure.
reply