Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : 2026 TeoTwawKi ... 2032 Darkest Interregnum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TobagoJack who wrote (170384)	4/14/2021 11:30:44 PM
From: sense	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 218863

I think it is always useful when something new comes along... To consider, first, that the newness brings in first adopters, first... the early crowd understand it because they were there when it was born and grew up with it... so you will find old guys who helped build the first transistors on a chip... who stayed in the game until now... and have not been left behind. And, the second and third generation kids... grew up with computers and now smart phones... depend on them... but couldn't manage a system running DOS or Windows 3.1 if their lives depended on it. "it just works" is the depth of their understanding. Without knowing how a thing works... you can't really understand what's different, new, or better about an improvement ? So, one key to understanding better at the meta level... once you do have the tech savvy to understand how chips work, and how they are different today than they were, say, in the early 80's... is to focus on how they are THE SAME... how they had potential to solve problems that we could envision back then... and how that potential was lost... because, the more things change... The original limits imposed in address space and memory expansion ? How well did we do in addressing those issues ? Does Moore's law solve every problem if only we can make it work for another generation ? Will it do more harm than good to solve the problem in the limits one more time ? Almost every successful stock scam I've ever seen... tip of the hat to Bre-X... was not based on a foundational fraud... Mostly, there actually has to be something at least recognizable as a potential value there to be able to run a scam around it... The point of the frauds is almost never that there is no value... it is instead that the value there is... is not actually what is being put on offer. If the value offered is fake... the frauds may go to jail. But, if the value is real... that you don't end up owning it is just bad luck ? How do you avoid being scammed ? NOT by assuring yourself that the value is, or may be, real... as that's more the entering argument in making a scam work... In the dot.com bubble... there were thousands of companies that were going to change the world by selling socks on line... or... whatever. Most of them never really solved any problems... or even pretended to do or have anything to sell other than "the internet means we can"... Dozens of companies were going to sell groceries on line... and they all failed... because none of them understood they were in the logistics business, not grocery marketing... and logistics is hard. Amazon succeeded... because Bezos got it right... and worked at solving the problems others pretended didn't exist. Were the rest of them scams... or just "less capable"? The instance isn't unique... nor the case. When Einstein gave us a new way of considering relativity... people went for it hook line and sinker. This is "the new reality"... better than the old one because... statistics ? And, all those aether theorists... derided as "simply fail to see the new reality"... ? Now that even those now know Einstein didn't solve all the problems and deliver "the end of physics" ? Those old guys weren't idiots... they just understood the nature of the problem more deeply... than the reporter from Time magazine ?