57

Then you get customer visible delays.

Unless you filter at the far end of the bottleneck you still go offline.

Ukraine's success proves that you need to actually have people guarding ships against intrusion. This is not a new lesson ever since the Raid on the Medway.

$150 mm with a gross margin of 80% and low capital is great. $150 mm when you spent a few billion not so much.

What reputation? These people don't know you.

Everyone knows Marriott.

How is the E-7 the wrong solution? It's worked fine for Australia.

An extra reason for the victim not to go to the cops!

The US will fund as many people who will develop this tech as need be. The national champion approach produces a too big to fail lazy company.

Wouldn’t any form of government funding produce a lazy company vs companies standing on their own two feet with the free market acting as drill sergeant?

Suppose you have to do some R&D in order to make something happen. There is no way to keep it a secret and China isn't going to enforce a patent on it, so if you pay to do the R&D and then have to charge prices high enough to recover it, they undercut you on price and you go out of business. But if the government covers the R&D then you can do domestic production at a competitive price.

Meanwhile the subsidy should be going to every company in the industry so then they still have to compete with each other.

Or to put it a different way, what's really the difference between a subsidy and a tax cut?

The funding can get companies spun up and competing.

Assuming they are picking winners. Western government's usually just throw money at existing legacy organizations, not up and coming companies.

In this case it's an institute attached to a big university (University of Texas) that is scaling up an R&D idea, that happens to be useful for the military https://www.statesman.com/story/business/2024/07/18/semicond...

Chance favors the prepared mind.

And compounding works wonders over the long run.

Apparently he started his first investment at age 11. 8 decades is a long time to compound even at low rates.

Compounding is great, but so is return to the mean. The comparision should be his rate of return. If its continously above the average over a long period, its not luck.

Compounding ensures that he will probably have a lot of money either way, which is why total $$ is a bad proxy for luck vs skill.

Many people manage to reach bankruptcy much faster than eight decades.