You're not seeing the investor perspective here. > Not all "growth" is desirable. Generally is, if you're an investor confident in not being the last fool hol

You're not seeing the investor perspective here. > Not all "growth" is desirable. Generally is, if you're an investor confident in not being the last fool holding the bag. If you're in this game you presumably have that confidence. > So why isn't there any attention given to companies that ... could reliably and sustainably deliver 20-40% growth over the next couple of decades? Because those companies don't have huge PR budgets or ridiculous numbers that facilitate hyperbolic news articles. > Meaningful technological growth rarely comes out of get-big-or-die gambits. You're probably right, and meaningful technological growth isn't the investment thesis applied here. Get big or die is the order of the day and (at least the investors believe) it works. If you have a better thesis, you're welcome to try your hand and show them they're wrong. > The moon landing wasn't powered by a "move fast and break things" attitude. No, it was powered by patriotic sentiment and an unlimited budget sucked from the pockets of the public. It's nothing at all like a startup. > It comes from the humbler 30% annual growth, one year after another after another. What, specifically, is this "technological growth" that is created when your company grows slowly? I would expect technological growth to generally scale along with users/revenue.