Taking the concession as a given as you requested: It's like the difference between running everything on one very beefy server versus having a horizontally sc

Taking the concession as a given as you requested: It's like the difference between running everything on one very beefy server versus having a horizontally scaling architecture on commodity hardware. Each have pros and cons, so its not as simple as supposing that just because one is less beefy than the other, the total value of running on a supercomputer versus a cluster is >95% value for the supercomputer relative to the cluster. If you have the goal of being able to scale to an arbitrary amount of traffic, building one very fast and expensive computer doesn't meet the traffic needs as well as building a lot of computers. A lot of things start leading to this conclusion. Economies of scale which come in when doing tons of a particular thing rather than just doing it once. Benefits of automation starting to factor in heavily for repeated projects rather than one off projects. Amortized costs of resources for repeated projects rather than one off projects. Another way you can approach understanding the differences in benefit of this project compared to a subway is by thinking about above ground transportation. Why are roads good, since we already have highways? Why are lifts at ski resorts good, when we have airports? What benefit is there to a boat, when we have cargo ships? Why have cars, when we have trains? All of these questions are intended to point toward there being some value in a cheaper solution relative to a much more expensive but less practically extensive solution. Yet another way you can understand the potential benefit relative to other transport costs is to imagine trying to optimize sign up for a site. If you reduce the number of fields in a sign-up form with the goal of making it easier to register, it is alike to reducing the cost of adding additional transport. In one case, the probability of a register increases. In the other case, the probability of a project which increases transport capacity increases. This analogy is imperfect, but I'm trying to give a analogy that technology people will understand through their experience: drive down cost, increase usage. Finally and I think this is one of the key things that needs to be understood about the proof of concept: its intended to be a first and not a last. The idea in driving down costs in tunneling is that there is an arbitrary amount of untapped transport capacity going unused beneath us. Making use of the tiniest fraction of it will only have a tiny benefit, much like making use of a single commodity computer will only have a tiny benefit. Making use of a hundred thousand tiny fractions of it will have a much more pronounced impact, much like making use of thousands of computers can have substantial benefits. You need to keep in mind the end goal, because a journey isn't its first step: one of the superhuman evaluations of a position supposes that the value of a position is the value of the expectation of where you end up, not where you are