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 ma

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 :\ Hence the designation "Hyper-Scalers".