Hacker News Reader

I would assume in a real crash, especially if we're comparing it to the 2000s tech crash, someone must get destroyed. I personally think companies that can't even make a car drive for a demo, something most at home diy ev hobby builders can do, and also lie about it, probably would go first in a crash.

You propose that's not what a crash is. What is it then? And when can we say it's as severe as the early 2000s crash?

View on HN

I just think of a crash as a sudden drop in asset values, we've seen that so far. A recession I think of as negative GDP growth for a couple quarters at least (i know i know but this is a reasonable definition and you know it) which we've also seen so far. So this is a crash/recession. It doesn't mean it will necessarily wipe out X. I don't know why it has to be as severe as Dotcom or Housing crashes. Doesn't seem to be a requirement to me. It has been incredibly severe for unprofitable tech companies looking for VC funding to keep them going indefinitely at least.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com