or like The fluctuations in gold, silver, fiat or commodities when they first appeared in the market.

Good thing none of those panned out or you wouldn’t have a leg to stand on.

The thing wrong with a stable company is that it doesn’t afford those at the top uncontrollable, disproportionate influence and profit.

American business culture disdains stable companies that maintain their size.

American business culture advocates for and promotes unlimited expansion and profit increase above all else, which is obviously unsustainable and distracts from creating good products or social benefit If you put a moment of thought into it, and benefits the one or few at the top while exploiting everybody else.

When that venture inevitably fails, the winners at the top get to exploit their ill-gotten profit to influence culture at large, radicalize the exploited and propagate the exploitative system.

The winners are shuffled around, and continue making obscene profit from each successive top position at the expense of their society, simultaneously creating and breaking laws to further their selfish, unsustainable gain.

watching that whole thing seemed worth it.

thanks

“losing its previous 3-year lead.”

what three-year lead?

“The future is uncertain, but the past is already set.”

or you think it is.

glad somebody’s reading.

keep on.

Hahaha, this is so funny.

but with six.

“[Fiat currency] is a speculative market. That doesn’t make it a good currency - in fact, it makes it a very bad currency. [Dollars] changing in value so much and so rapidly makes them awful for use as a daily currency, and they’re backed by [gold] anyways because otherwise, they’d have no value.”

yes, yes, go on.

“The only reason people care about [fiat] is because they think they can make a lot of money off of it when they hand the bag off to somebody else.”

It’s good that fiat currency never really got a foothold or it looks like you wouldn’t have any argument.

this sounds like it’s confirming my original comment with more specificity, that Intel was consistently playing catch up to tsmc and the only thing that might happen in the future is that maybe tsmc doesn’t progress at the rate they have been and Intel develops a theoretical technology.

lots of maybes and ifs.

maybes and ifs are not evidence of TSMCs downfall, they’re playthings that may or may not happen without any reasonable data to interpret.

I don’t have a horse in this race, but I am allegiant to facts and logical consistency.

juggling what ifs is not very interesting for me.

“crypto was stupid from the beginning”

How? Do you find debit cards stupid?

“people who knew about the tech told everyone so”

completely untrue.

people at the forefront of cryptography and economics were excited about the Bitcoin white paper because cryptographic digital currencies is an obvious-in-hindsight evolution in currency.

they were so excited about it that they joined nakamoto in creating cryptocurrencies, collaborating and developing new technologies until it was launched and beyond.

“idiots bought the shit to get rugpulled”

how exactly is gaining 400,000% in value over a decade a “rug pull”?

wow, that’s great to hear.

you can definitely do this. it’s only scary until you start doing it, and then you’ll get right into the swing of things.

yup, they must have realized the hole they’re digging isn’t getting any shallower.

whiffwhiffff.

but hey, you swung.

“CBDCs aren’t cryptocurrencies”

Love to hear how you think cryptographic digital currencies aren’t cryptographic digital currencies.

“As for the rest, “It’s good because it’s making lots of money””

cryptocurrencies are exceptionally popular tech with very active communities developing new technology that is constantly gaining popularity and value.

by your flawed metrics, solar power is “hype”.

totally whiffed on crypto.

at least 130 countries are working on developing national cryptocurrencies.

Bitcoin goes from $15 to $62,000 in ten years

crypto market cap goes from $11 billion to two trillion dollars in ten years.

The only people calling crypto a failure are ig’nant or covered in salt.

“Intel has only been behind for the last 7 years or so”

what is your source for this?

at what point was intel even at par with tsmc in semiconductor/fab quality and production?

I’ve heard this twice now, but as far as I understand, Intel has never met the fabrication technology or demand that TSMC has and has been playing catch up for three decades.

I’m very willing to read a sourced article offering more historical context.

as for the article you’ve linked, it’s a more technical iteration of the “yea but maybe?” articles.

There’s zero refutation of tsmc dominance and zero evidence of a true emergent competitor.

“but it remains to be seen whether they’ll hit a wall where Samsung and/or Intel leapfrog them again. Or maybe Samsung or Intel hit a wall and fall even further behind. Either way, we’re not yet at a stage where we know what things look like beyond 2nm”

their point is “heyvwe don’t know”, but if tsmc next-gen R&D and production fails, and if another company is able to close the distance between themselves and tsmc’s current held advantage, and if that theoretical company is then able to pull ahead with theoretical technologies, then TSMC might not be in first place in terms of semiconductor manufacturing.

“but what if…” isn’t exactly a compelling or relevatory argument.

if a new zero emissions concrete dropped tomorrow and if a company secured the funding to produce it commercially and if they partnered with a next-gen 3d-printing company and real estate developer exclusively committed to low-income housing, then they could build a national chain of economically viable housing units.

None of that has happened and there’s no evidence of it happening, so it’s just a hypothetical series of events.

ha, I’m surprised it’s so high, but I guess we don’t talk to each other.